An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.

Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.

While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies.

Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections

Today’s example comes from global-average sea surface temperatures. The oceans provide our best gauge of how fast extra energy is accumulating in the climate system. Since John Christy and I are working on a project that explains global ocean temperatures since the late 1800s with a 1D climate model, I thought I would show you just how the observations are comparing to climate models simulations.

The plot below (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average ocean surface temperature variations since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have.

Fig. 1. 68 CMIP6 climate model simulations of global average sea surface temperature (relative to the 5 year average, 1979-1983), and compared to observations from the ERSSTv5 dataset.

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

Fig. 2. Linear temperature trends, 1979-2020, for the various model and observational datasets in Fig. 1, plus the HadSST3 observational record.

Deep Ocean Warming Could Be Mostly Natural

A related issue is how much the deep oceans are warming. As I have mentioned before, the (inarguable) energy imbalance associated with deep-ocean warming in recent decades is only about 1 part (less than 1 Watt per sq. m) in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system.

This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.

What that means is that global warming could be mostly natural, and we would not even know it.

I’m not claiming that is the case. I am merely pointing out the level of faith that is involved in the adjustments made to climate models, which necessarily produce warming due to increasing CO2 because those models simply assume that there is no other source of warming.

Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.

Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.

Why does it matter?

It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).

But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.

4.8 55 votes
Article Rating
198 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 22, 2021 10:32 pm

“Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict

Misleading headline. It talks of a particular subset (SST), not global temperature. And it isn’t “prediction” – CMIP6 is the current round of modelling.

But the main issue is, what is he actually comparing to ERSST? The variables routinely output for CMIP6 are tas (surface air temperature), pr and psl. Those are what you can find on the KNMI explorer, which is what Roy usually uses. The only data that seems to correspond to what he has plotted is TAS with a land/sea mask. 

But TAS is not the same as SST. We use SST in a global land/ocean index because it is much better measured. But it is well known, as a matter of observation, that it is warming differently to SST (faster). So it is not surprising that modelled ocean SAT is also warming faster than measured SST.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 10:35 pm

Very useful and informed comment. Thanks.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 10:50 pm

It sure looks like Roy has used KNMI TAS. That records 68 simulations from 13 models, as the graph shows. And it is air temperature, not SST.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 11:23 pm

Nick: “And it is air temperature, not SST”

WR: Isn’t the temperature just above the ocean’s surface supposed to follow sea surface temperatures very closely?

Reply to  Wim Röst
April 22, 2021 11:39 pm

Well, models don’t resolve the metre scale boundary layer. GCM surface temperature is extrapolated from the low elements, usually at least 100m thick.

The 2008 AR4 had a section on the differences here. They give graphs, generally showing a higher growth rate of TAS (there MAT) than SST over this period. Data has improved since then.

Last edited 3 months ago by Nick Stokes
lee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:13 am

“Well, models don’t resolve the metre scale boundary layer.” Is that the problem with the models? Or just one of many? LOL

Reply to  lee
April 23, 2021 2:37 am

Models have well known limitations in resolution. But they are dealing with conserved quantities – energy, mass and momentum. The resolution is fine for determining large scale time-averaged climate.

James F. Evans
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 5:08 am

Bottom line:

All the models are wrong.

Thus, the apriori assumptions plugged into the models are wrong,

You know the story: garbage in… garbage out.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 9:46 am

Those large time-averaged climate results have so much uncertainty that you simply can’t tell what is actually happening. The resolution is irrelevant if the uncertainty interval is larger than your resolution.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 10:48 am

The resolution and the models are obviously not fine if they can’t follow the observations.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 8:57 am

Have you ever considered running for political office? You have the qualifications. That is, you can run with a simple question and obfuscate it to the point that it is difficult to tell if you answered the question or not.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 24, 2021 6:59 pm

Well, it’s good to know that 12 folks here support the idea.

fred250
Reply to  Wim Röst
April 23, 2021 12:44 am

Desperation, Nick !!

So funny !

TheFinalNail
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 3:14 am

Roy Spencer conflates observed sea surface temperatures with modelled surface air temperatures and concludes that that the model predictions are wrong.

Fred thinks the person who points Roy’s nonsense out is the desperate one.

TallDave
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 23, 2021 7:38 am

just don’t ask Nick how much TAS actually varies from SST, or compare that to the difference between the median model and observations

Reply to  TallDave
April 23, 2021 1:53 pm

“just don’t ask Nick how much TAS actually varies from SST”
That is something that Roy should have established before claiming that a discrepancy proved models wrong. Why not ask him?

Reply to  TallDave
April 23, 2021 3:54 pm

I have plotted the comparison for CMIP5 here

Lrp
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 23, 2021 10:53 am

There is no conflation at all, if you understand the meaning of this is a comparison between models’ predictions and observations

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 23, 2021 1:37 pm

Poor bent and rusty , still grasping at barbed wire straws.

Climate models are a load of agenda driven CRAP,

Nick KNOWS that., (and I suspect you do also.)

…. but will do anything he can think of to try to defend them.

RickWill
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 11:50 pm

Still does not explain why the models cover a range of 1.5C for the present time. You would think it reasonable that they could actually get agreement on the correct temperature to 0.001C before applying their warming trends!

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 12:13 am

Well, I think the total range is more like 1°C. But the GCMs were initialised several decades ago, and then run to present using historical forcings. So you are seeing the cumulative effects of their natural variation.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 12:45 am

You see BUILT-IN AGENDA-DRIVEN WARMING !

lee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:16 am

“and then run to present using historical forcings”. Funny they were then run using guesstimated historical forcings. 😉

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 5:20 am

 So you are seeing the cumulative effects of their natural variation”

So the models have “natural” variations? Or is that nature has natural variations?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 7:42 am

The proper word is unforced. And of course they do. Just look at the graph.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:39 pm

But it is FORCED,

…by the AGW cult religion which you have supported and continue to support.

You know the wobbles in the models are just a facet of randomised values…

Stop trying to PRETEND otherwise.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Robert W Turner
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 8:23 am

That range is increasing faster than the actual measured temperatures. That should tell you something.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 10:56 am

Are you saying that GCMs are suffering from the effects of natural variations?

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 26, 2021 9:05 pm

Yeah physics loves the concept of historical forcings … the vase fell off the table because the historical forcing made it do so … paper to follow 🙂

Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 1:27 am

Well, I think the range is more like 1°C. But the GCMs were initialised several decades ago, and then run to present using historical forcings. So you are seeing the cumulative effects of their natural variation.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:42 pm

No, you see the effect of agenda-driven warming.

Hindcasting to FAKE data series like GISS.

The wobbles come from randomised variables.

Climate believer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 12:31 am

Misleading headline. It talks of a particular subset (SST), not global temperature.”

Fair enough, but there is a sub-title saying that just after the intro.

Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections

“And it isn’t “prediction” – CMIP6 is the current round of modelling.”

I thought it was called the “Decadal Climate Prediction Project”
“These are multi-model and multi-institutional experiments aimed at improving our understanding of the physical climate system and our ability to predict its evolution on timescales from seasons to decades.”



Reply to  Climate believer
April 23, 2021 1:25 am

‘I thought it was called the “Decadal Climate Prediction Project”’
That’s something else. But the runs here have been collected over the last year. You can’t test even decadal projections in that time frame.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 2:54 am

I really am stunned that a maybe-once-intelligent person can actually STILL PRETEND to support what is obviously a load of garbage when it comes to climate models

Is someone still paying you, Nick ?

Would it hurt your ego SO MUCH to actually face the truth !???

LdB
Reply to  fred250
April 26, 2021 9:07 pm

Careful you have to use a historical forcing to assume “maybe-once-intelligent person” … I am not so convinced.

TallDave
Reply to  Climate believer
April 23, 2021 7:29 am

“And it isn’t “prediction” – CMIP6 is the current round of modelling.”

lol and by the time CMIP6 predictions are disproven by observations, Nick will just point at CMIP7 or CMIP8 or CMIP9 and so on ad infinitum

what a sweet racket

Last edited 3 months ago by TallDave
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  TallDave
April 23, 2021 12:26 pm

He find little nits to pick on one leg of the elephant.

lgl
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 3:07 am

What is the correct comparison then, using data from KNMI explorer? Which obervational dataset is supposed to match TAS?

lgl
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 4:10 am

… and, is TOS (currently CMIP5 only it seems) comparable to SST?

Reply to  lgl
April 23, 2021 3:52 pm

Yes. Presumably TOS for CMIP6 will be posted in due course, but doesn’t seem to be available now. I have plotted TOS and TAS for CMIP5 below. They are not the same.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 5:50 am

Nick, do you think climate change is the existential threat that Biden and the rest of the woke crowd claim it to be?

Steve Fitzpatrick
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 5:51 am

Nick,
I think your comment is at least as misleading as Roy’s headline, and probably more so. Are you suggesting the ocean only model SAT (lowest altitude) is diverging rapidly from the measured sea surface temperature? Or are you just trying to divert attention from the clear divergence Roy shows? Defending the honor of the models seems to me a fool’s errand (and one that never ends…. see Ben Santer’s most recent arm waves about lack of predicted tropospheric warming if you need some amusement… seems Santer simply can’t accept that the prediction is wrong) yet the climate alarmed never seem to tire of defending incorrect predictions. The models have lots of problems, the most glaring of which is a consistent over-prediction of warming. If the ‘modeling community’ could ever bring themselves to admit that problem and figure out why the predictions are wrong, then they would have better models, and a source of endless political conflict about suitable public policy would be reduced.

Reply to  Steve Fitzpatrick
April 23, 2021 8:12 am

Steve,
“Are you suggesting the ocean only model SAT (lowest altitude) is diverging rapidly from the measured sea surface temperature?”
The thing is that they are different quantities. That needs to be stated and dealt with. It creates two possibilities (assuming SST is right):
1. The models are wrong
2. SST and SAT really are behaving differently, and the models are right
and of course it could be a bit of both, or even a lot of both.

It is possible for SAT and SST to deviate. For years, GISS Ts and GISS Ts+SST have deviated, with Ts (the air version) warming faster by an amount of this order. Ts does not measure MAT (marine AT) directly, and MAT is hard to get right because of the problems of ship environment, but the AR4 had a section on the difference between MAT and SST here. There are certainly differences. 

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 9:07 am

I think that this is the closest I’ve ever seen you come to acknowledging that there might be more than one side to the story.

Would you care to speculate on why SST and SAT might behave differently other than the difference in specific heat?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 23, 2021 7:13 pm

Specific heat is irrelevant to long term averages. SST is taken at some intermediate point between the skin surface, in contact with air, and the thermocline, where temperatures are much less varying. 

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 12:09 pm

The point being, the high specific heat of water causes a much smaller change in temperature for a given amount of energy. Therefore, water mimics a highly smoothed air temperature record and will lag changes in SAT.

You stated “It is possible for SAT and SST to deviate.” I asked for you to speculate as to why that might be. You came back with what you think isn’t responsible. This is typical of you and why I jabbed you at 8:57 for obfuscation. I asked a simple question and I got a deflection instead of a direct answer!

If a temperature is taken near the thermocline (Which one?), then I don’t think that it qualifies as an SST. If the temperatures are being taken in the upper mixing zone, then they should be a reasonable average between the surface and bottom-water extremes.

Again, what is you explanation for the difference in behavior between SST and SAT?

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 11:08 am

Nick, isn’t GISS Ts an estimate and if so, wouldn’t you expect errors associated with it?

Reply to  Lrp
April 23, 2021 2:01 pm

Yes.

Stephen Fitzpatrick
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 12:55 pm

A very reasonable first estimate is that the 100 meters over the ocean is linked pretty tightly to the ocean surface temperature. I looked at your link; I am unpersuaded. Any difference appears small and uncertain, and certainly NOT a factor of two, as Roy’s graphic indicates. If you really do think there is a huge divergence which explains why the models’ marine air temperature look very wrong compared the sea surface temperature, then please provide better supporting evidence. Really, what you are saying seems to me as silly as Ben Santer’s most recent excuse about a lack of hotspot. To paraphrase: the hot-spot isn’t there because, well, the climate is behaving in “an unusual way”… if we could run the Earth’s climate 100 times, then it would agree with the models. Santer is clearly delusional and ridiculous, confusing reality with models. I suggest you don’t channel Santer.

Reply to  Stephen Fitzpatrick
April 23, 2021 2:46 pm

Steve,
I have plotted below, here, TAS and TOS as given for CMIP5. Presumably TOS will become available for CMIP6 in due course. The difference is not a factor of 2, but about 1.4. Quite significant.

Steve Fitzpatrick
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 5:07 pm

Nick,
I see. It’s models all the way down. Roy points out that two meter height temperature over the ocean is tightly coupled to ocean temperature (as it logically has to be!) and you reply that two different MODEL predictions show bla-bla-bla. The models are way off: mean temperature, Regional temperatures, regional rain fall patterns, tropospheric hot spot, and plenty more. We don’t need a dozen or two independent models, especially since, if anything, each new iteration of “the model ensemble” becomes more outlandish in its predictions. The models are not constrained by factual reality; modelers need to be held to account on the basis of accuracy, but never are. it is a formula for no progress, and that formula is obviously working.

Last edited 3 months ago by Steve Fitzpatrick
Reply to  Steve Fitzpatrick
April 23, 2021 7:09 pm

“It’s models all the way down.”
No, halfway. Roy is comparing measured SST with modelled TAS. I am pointing out what would happen if you compared with modelled TOS, which is the GCM explicit match to SST. And it makes a big difference. That shows the error of the comparison.

Last edited 3 months ago by Nick Stokes
ScarletMacaw
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 5:58 am

Nick, get back to me when the Climate “Science” community admits that the claim of sea level rise acceleration is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Otherwise it’s reasonable to assume that everything they say is a flat out lie.

TallDave
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 7:35 am

“But TAS is not the same as SST. We use SST in a global land/ocean index because it is much better measured. But it is well known, as a matter of observation, that it is warming differently to SST (faster).”

lol not by a whole degree

look at the difference between the median model and the current anomaly

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 8:55 am

I find it very strange that there are so many negatives here. All, or most, of thee post’s seem clear and well thought out, yet some one is choosing to post a negative? Predictions are seldom proven to be correct, and besides, Remember, too, that what they ‘predict’ is pretty small. Looking at the actual, OBSERVED, temps shows how right I am!

Roy W. Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 9:45 am

On these time and space scales, 2m air temperature changes are extremely tightly coupled to SST changes. Their variations can be considered to be quantitatively the same for trends over the global average oceans

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
April 23, 2021 11:01 am

Are you able to demonstrate that this is actually true?

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 23, 2021 11:57 am

Are you able to demonstrate it is not true?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
April 24, 2021 9:01 am

I am not, but Nick Stokes seems to have unequivocally shown that it is not true in his comment below.

LdB
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 26, 2021 9:11 pm

The only thing unequivocal is Nick just publishes junk and pretends to be an expert.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 23, 2021 1:44 pm

Weakling wakes up from his snooze and wonders what is going on around him !!

Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
April 23, 2021 2:42 pm

Roy,
“Their variations can be considered to be quantitatively the same”
They are substantially different. TOS is the variable in CMIP5 which corresponded to SST. Here is the plot for the RCP4.5 mean of TOS
comment image

And here is the plot for TAS, restricted to ocean points only
comment image

TAS increases by about 1.1°C, TOS by about 0.8°C. The same behaviour can be expected for CMIP6. It would make a much less impressive difference if you compared ERSST with the proper correspondence, TOS, there.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 2:06 pm

Thanks for digging out the data Nick.
It is interesting that this difference is not seen in the graphs you linked from AR4 showing HadSST2 and HadMAT.

I guess that’s another thing the models get wrong. Useful to know that.

Reply to  Greg
April 24, 2021 6:57 pm

I think the chief suspect is HADMAT. Measuring MAT on a wide scale is notoriously hard (which is why they use SST).

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 25, 2021 4:33 pm

Nick, I just went to KNMI and got the data. You find a much greater difference than actually exists. This is because you are using data from 90°N to 90°S, and Dr. Roy is using data from 60°N to 60°S.

The actual divergence between air and sea temperature over the period is only 0.09°C, not 0.3°C as you claim … in other words, it’s a difference that makes very little difference.

Best regards, and thanks for going to the source and running the numbers yourself. That’s doing the homework, and it is how science progresses.

w.

Last edited 3 months ago by Willis Eschenbach
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 25, 2021 5:44 pm

Willis,
Thanks also for checking. It raises the question, though, of whether Roy’s ERSST comparison was 60S-60N or the whole ocean. He doesn’t say, but if whole ocean, then the -90 to 90 is the appropriate range to compare. I’m not aware of any published ERSST series for the restricted range, and dealing with the full set of gridded data is a big job.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 25, 2021 9:00 pm

Willis,
I have plotted together the various CMIP5 options, and also HADSST3 and NOAA-SST, showing also the trends in C/decade over the range. It does confirm what you say about the restricted latitudes being closer. But it shows a much smaller disparity between CMIP5 and the observed. The trend of HADSST3 was 0.139C/dec, and the corresponding TOS was 0.15C/dec. Pretty close. Maybe CMIP6 is radically different, but that would be surprising. I’ll check the TAS results, but it takes longer, because all 68 series have to be made.
comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Nick Stokes
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 12:46 pm

And it isn’t “prediction” – CMIP6 is the current round of modelling.

I threw the BS flag onto the field—if a model is run past the current date, it IS a prediction. All of them clearly have.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 23, 2021 3:48 pm

It is a prediction, but there is no data to conclude whether the “prediction” succeeded or not.

Timo Soren
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 1:16 pm

Why don’t they output tos, the 2-d variable in the CMIP models?
Represents a variable we would be interested in, we have a comparable observable.

Reply to  Timo Soren
April 23, 2021 3:24 pm

I think it is coming. CMIP5 had both, but TOS appeared at KNMI much later. I have plotted above the comparison for CMIP5.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 6:04 pm

The enthalpy of the oceans is 999x that of the atmosphere. The oceans are the dog, a bull mastiff. The atmosphere is the tip of its docked tail. The dog wags the tail. Not the other way round.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 8:39 am

Nick Stokes posted, unbelievably: “And it isn’t ‘prediction’ – CMIP6 is the current round of modelling.”

Hmmm . . . I just observe that the CMIP6 “current round of modelling” presents future values out to at least 2031 (in reality they likely go longer), as explicitly presented in the above article’s Figure 1.

In my world, that fact unambiguously meets the definition of “making predictions”.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 24, 2021 11:36 am

But the heading says that the “prediction” turned out wrong. How is that possible if it has only just been made?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 11:57 am

So these mighty climate models can only run in real time?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 3:44 pm

(Sigh) . . . Nick, Nick, Nick . . . did you even bother to look at Figure 1 in the above article?

If you had—and really understood what you were looking at—you would see the referenced 13 models associated with CMIP6 present output results (not data!) going as far back as 1979. Model outputs going back in time are commonly known as “hindcasting” and are frequently used to show that a given model has been properly tuned so that it closely approximates past weather/climate data.

But climate modelers often overlook the sage advice given out by financial advisors: past performance is no guarantee of future results.

As regards your specific question, I have read and re-read the above article, including its heading, and find no mention that any prediction that has “just been made” has “turned out” to be wrong. Ref: Reading Comprehension 101

Last edited 3 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 24, 2021 7:08 pm

” find no mention that any prediction that has “just been made” has “turned out” to be wrong”

The title is
““Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict”
and the evidence offered is that in years 1979 to 2020 SST rose more slowly than CMIP models show (looking at TAS). CMIP6 is not, in 2020/1, “predicting” 1979-2020. It isn’t just a misplaced word. The fact that the models showed that result when observations are already available is a clue that the discrepancy may not be real. And indeed, if you replace TAS with the correct correspondent, TOS, a lot of it goes away.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 25, 2021 7:39 am

Verbatim from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:

Definition of predict
transitive verb
to declare or indicate in advance
especially foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

Since the operative words in the above are “in advance” and “foretell”, it is illogical to assert that any current prediction (i.e., one that has just been made) can be established to be either right or wrong.

Only past predictions can be established to have been either correct or wrong, with due consideration of the timeframes necessary to do such.

So, yes, to be picky, there is actually an error in the above article’s heading: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict”. The word “Predicted” should have been used instead of “Predict”.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 1:43 pm

So it seems from what you are saying that the climate models have been designed not to output any quantity which is directly comparable to an existing observational dataset.

That would seem to be a strange omission. How are they “tuned” to the calibration 1960-1990 period, if they do not have any directly comparable data to work from?

Also, from the AR4 link you provide, I do not see any significant difference in the warming rate of HadSST” and HadMAT.

Last edited 3 months ago by Greg
Reply to  Greg
April 24, 2021 2:16 pm

“How are they “tuned” to the calibration 1960-1990 period”
They are not. CMIP6 results for TOS have not yet been posted, but they have been for CMIP5, so I presume CMIP6 will appear in due course.

Chris Nisbet
April 22, 2021 10:35 pm

“Prosperity will suffer”.
The more the insanity of (allegedly) trying to fix this non-problem continues, the more I’m convinced that this is the plan.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
April 23, 2021 4:42 am

Prosperity of ordinary people will suffer, not that of the global elites, which will increase dramatically.

April 22, 2021 10:36 pm
Scissor
Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 23, 2021 5:35 am

Nice collection!

Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 23, 2021 6:13 am

Thank you for all the articles you produce on your site. Very informative.

RickWill
April 22, 2021 10:57 pm

The models disagree on the present temperature by up to 1.5 degrees C. And we are advised that another 0.5C rise will be catastrophic.

Chris Hanley
April 22, 2021 11:04 pm

Stand by for the usual ‘ the models are correct, the observational data wrong’.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 22, 2021 11:05 pm

Too late.

April 22, 2021 11:04 pm

How come only the Russians’ climate model is anywhere near accurate? It can’t be that they have good science and good scientists because CNN tells me that ain’t so. No – they’re bad people and subhuman as our dear leaders keep telling us – or “untermenschen” as our spiritual father from last century would say.
/sarc (btw)

No – they must have just hacked God.

New sanctions then?

RickWill
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 22, 2021 11:57 pm

From my observations, the Chinese FGOALS model is closest to reality – still unphysical but the trend OK.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 23, 2021 10:40 am

And the Russians have built a fleet of the largest icebreakers in the planet while we are going to let global warming remove the ice and save the expense.

https://bellona.org/news/arctic/2020-09-russias-new-nuclear-icebreaker-sets-sail-for-arctic-at-half-steam

S.K.
April 22, 2021 11:12 pm

There is no global warming just data altering.

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/the-new-climate-fraud-normal/

comment image

S.K.
Reply to  S.K.
April 22, 2021 11:35 pm

comment image

fred250
Reply to  S.K.
April 23, 2021 12:47 am

Yep, The “ADJUSTMENTS” account for basically ALL THE WARMING in the US..

Graemethecat
Reply to  S.K.
April 23, 2021 9:22 am

See any number of YouTube videos by Tony Heller, who exposes in great detail just how grossly the historical temperature records have been “adjusted” to conform to the Global Warming narrative.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 23, 2021 1:52 pm

Tony Exposes the Big Lie as told by Climate Change Alarmists.

If the alarmists didn’t have bastardized temperature charts, they wouldn’t have anything at all. All they have are distortions of reality which are easily refuted by pointing at actual historical temperature readings. They show that “hotter and hotter” is a fraud.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  S.K.
April 23, 2021 1:46 pm

This USHCN chart is a Big Lie. A “hotter and hotter” Big Lie. It’s fraud all the way down.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 4:53 pm

Note that it is made by Tony Heller. NOAA stopped making such charts in 2014.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 24, 2021 10:42 am

Well of course the NOAA stopped, wouldn’t want to shed any more light on their apparent maleficence

Tom Abbott
Reply to  S.K.
April 23, 2021 1:43 pm

This U.S. chart is representative of the global temperature profile. All other unmodified regional surface temperature charts from around the world, resemble the temperatue profile of the U.S. chart.

All of them show that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. This means that CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures since while CO2 has been increasing over the decades, the temperatures have warmed and cooled and warmed again and now appear to be cooling again. Just what one would expect if the climate follows the past cyclical pattern and not CO2 concentrations.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 4:10 pm

If warming isn’t global then it is regional. If it is regional then it is most likely weather and not climate. If it is weather then it is probably cyclical. It’s that way almost everywhere on the earth. Warm years, cold years, warm years, cold years, ……

RickWill
April 22, 2021 11:35 pm

Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.

o

No it doesn’t.

Anyone stating this does not understand how earth’s energy is regulated.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 22, 2021 11:56 pm

Dr Roy Spencer designed and operates the satellites that measure temperature and energy budget at multiple altitudes across the entire globe and has proven these accurate by comparison to balloon and radiosonde measurements. Perhaps you could explain what it is he doesn’t understand?

B Clarke
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 12:22 am

Dr roys observed temperature readings show there is no linear rise in earths temperatures, to my mind it shows with accuracy warming and cooling, eg el Nino 2016, la nina present , its very good at picking up natural climate variations, it does not explain the influence of co2 if indeed there is any influence from co2. The observed temp readings contradict climate models.

If I remember rightly Rickwill has writen many times on here why co2 does not alter earths temperatures.. I’m sure if he comes back he will explain. I also believe co2 from human sources does not alter earths temperatures.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 12:48 am

NOTHING there at all that proves warming by atmospheric CO2.

Let’s see you actually produce some solid empirical scientific evidence.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 8:44 am

C’mon Fred it’s easy with the right test gear to show the absorption bands of CO2 absorb heat and more CO2 will absorb more heat….just that it isn’t in relevant quantity below about 7km where water vapor and clouds predominate. Your “produce evidence” theme is as weak as asking to prove that KE=1/2 mv^2, it really doesn’t help your case with those who have studied the basis.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 9:39 am

It’s far more complicated than this. So what if more CO2 absorbs more IR from the earth? The important thing is what happens to that absorbed energy. CO2 doesn’t hold on to it very long. It either re-radiates it or it passes it on to other molecules through collisions. Hot air rises, right? So that absorbed heat generates movement *away* from the earth, i.e. things like convection. latent heat, lapse rate, etc. As heated water vapor rises it causes rain and radiation losses to space. All of which works to *cool*, not heat.So more CO2 would seem to do nothing more than generate more turnover in the atmosphere.

So Fred is right, where is the evidence that CO2 is *the* cause of global warming? Especially anthropogenic CO2?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 3:10 pm

Tim, you apparently didn’t read my “just that it isn’t a relevant quantity”, plus a blogroll comment isn’t really a suitable place to give a two semester course….of course its more complicated.

And Fred said “nothing proves warming by CO2”, not “CO2 is the cause”. Its easy to show CO2 absorbs IR. Therefore it warms up. Just not much. An incandescent light bulb warms a room. Just not much. Time to get over it.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 4:24 pm

The point is not that it is “not a relevant factor”, the point is that it is not a factor at all.

CO2 enters an excited state when it absorbs IR. IT DOES NOT STAY THAT WAY. It either re-radiates it or it passes it on through collisions with other molecules. It doesn’t just sit there in a “hotter” state raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Re-radiation or collisions result in a cooling, not heating.

An incandescent bulb gets hot and is a source of heat. The atmosphere is *NOT* a heat generator. The only heat source available is the sun.

philincalifornia
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 6:39 pm

It has never been shown using real scientific methods. “It must” is a voices in your head thing.

Similarly, it’s a radiative gas, so “increased CO2 must cool the planet” is also a voices in your head thing.

We’re talking about its effect at levels over 280ppm, not lab physics. It’s so complex but it can be measured and, to date, there is no scientifically valid data that shows that CO2 at levels above 280ppm has had any effect on any global climate parameter.

See below:

(your feeble response)

DMacKenzie
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 23, 2021 11:07 pm

Sounds like you believe that CO2’s IR absorptive and radiative properties are unknown to science. That’s a fairly serious error on your part. I think you can run Radis on-line, maybe try a couple of runs.

philincalifornia
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 24, 2021 5:15 am

It doesn’t sound like that at all Mr, Juvenile Deflection.

Pay attention to what’s actually being said not what the voices in YOUR head make up (“sounds like”) just so you can deflect from a question that you can’t answer.

Try it again with an answer that has 280ppm in it.

fred250
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 1:49 pm

Only a complete ignoramus thinks radiative effects of 0.04% of the atmosphere have any bearing on the bulk of the atmospheric.

But go ahead and display that stupidity.

Its obvious that you HAVEN’T got up to “the basis” yet.

It is noted that you “PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE”, just mindless yapping.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
DMacKenzie
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 3:13 pm

At the top of the troposphere only 12Km up, where H2O is only 10 ppm, CO2 is 400 ppm, and IR radiation and SW reflection is the only way heat gets to outer space….Fred is the chief pilot flying Ign0ramus One.

Last edited 3 months ago by DMacKenzie
Tim Gorman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 4:25 pm

Apparently you’ve never heard of rain or lapse rate.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 11:09 pm

Actually clouds are my usual posting topic.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 11:11 pm

Yeah, I edited to make it more polite.

ATheoK
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 24, 2021 12:57 pm

CO₂ is minimally infrared interactive absorbing and emitting a miniscule fraction of the infrared radiation spectrum.

CO₂ is transparent to all of the higher energy spectrum.

CO₂ is 0.04% of the atmosphere. That is four molecules out of every ten thousand atmospheric molecules are CO₂.

H₂O is highly interactive across the entire light spectrum in all three H₂O physical states.
Water vapor especially swamps the infrared spectrum.

H₂O comprises up to 5.0% of the atmosphere. That is out of every ten thousand molecules of atmosphere, water vapor comprises up to 500 molecules of water vapor.

The whole CO₂ “global warming” theory is utterly dependent upon higher CO₂ levels driving much higher atmospheric levels of H₂O.

Actual atmospheric warming by CO₂?
Bupkis! Totally Bupkis!

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 4:18 am

The NOAA/NCEP SST record shows no trend in the Nino34 region. It uses moored buoys for calibration and satellite for interpolating. The UAH LTL shows an upward trend for the same region so is not related to what occurs on the surface. Attached compares them – granted UAH may not have any bearing on ocean surface temperature.

By Version 7 UAH TLT may get it right. For now you can believe NOAA/NCEP in the tropical oceans and moored buoys. The rest are all fiddled.

Irrespective it is quite clear that Roy Spencer is a true believer in the “greenhouse effect” nonsense.

Warm pools continue to regulate around their 30C limit as they have done for millions of years across three tropical oceans:
comment image

Nino34_Compare.png
davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 7:46 am

The size of the warm pool rises and sinks with warming and cooling, and tells you nothing about the energy flows that heat them.

You didn’t answer my question. What does Dr. Roy Spencer get wrong? If the radiative physics he uses to calculate temperature are wrong, then his satellites wouldn’t work at all. Its the same radiative physics.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 1:50 pm

But it is NOT what controls the transfer of energy in the atmosphere.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 2:06 pm

No single thing controls energy transfer in the atmosphere. But many single things affect it.

CO2 intercepts some LW radiance that otherwise would have escaped to space. Any spectroscopy lab can demonstrate this.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 3:02 pm

CO2 intercepts some LW radiance that otherwise would have escaped to space. Any spectroscopy lab can demonstrate this.

But that has nothing to do with the energy balance or temperature control on Earth.

Atmospheric water completely dominates the energy exchange. The cooling coefficient for water in the atmosphere averages 4W/sq.m/cm in April. In other words, every mm increase in water vapour increases ToA cooling by 0.4W/sq.m.; exact opposite of what the “greenhouse effect” claims.

The bigger the ocean warm pools, the higher the cooling coefficient.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 3:43 pm

So you admit that CO2 absorbs LW radiance, but insist that has nothing to do with energy balance. LOL.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 4:18 pm

It doesn’t have anything to do with it. It doesn’t absorb that LW radiation and then just sit there in an excited (i.e. hotter) state.

philincalifornia
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 6:44 pm

A common fallacy David – conflating CO2 absorption of LW radiance, with what happens globally at over 280ppm CO2 on a background of water vapor, convection, Beer-Lambert Law reduction, clouds, fake data and probably a couple of hundred other climate parameters.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 4:17 pm

What does it do with it after it has intercepted it? If it is existing in an excited state then there are only two things it can do – and both lead to cooling, either through radiation or lapse rate.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 4:24 pm

The two things it can do are xfer energy to another molecule via collision, or it can reradiate the energy in a random direction. Some of this is up toward space and some of it is downward toward earth. In either case, energy that otherwise would have escaped to space is retained. In order that Stefan Boltzmann Law be satisfied, other parts of the system must radiate more heat to space. If someone wants to characterize this as “increased cooling” they are technically correct. Since the system has warmed, increased cooling is required to compensate. Energy in MUST = Energy out (SB Law) and the only way the rest of the system can radiate more energy is by being warmer.

All of this ignores secondary effects which make the end result even more uncertain but there is no arguing what the primary effect is.

Last edited 3 months ago by davidmhoffer
Tim Gorman
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 4:29 pm

It is *NOT* retained.

  1. If it warms the earth then the earth re-radiates it back to the atmosphere where some more of it escapes to space. This represents a damped function as the heat is bounced back and forth between the earth and the atmosphere.
  2. I’ll repeat. It’s obvious you’ve never heard of rain or the lapse rate.
davidmhoffer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 5:20 pm

Apparently Tim you did not read my reponse. Ultimately it MUST escape back into space, else SB Law is not met. The path it takes to get there changes and that has consequences. One of the consequences is that the Mean Radiating Level increases in altitude. Since the MRL must be 255K to satisfy SB Law, if you follow the lapse rate back down to the surface, you wind up with a higher surface temperature. Yeah I’ve heard about the lapse rate and I understand how it fits into the picture. Duh.

Last edited 3 months ago by davidmhoffer
philincalifornia
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 6:46 pm

We know all this David. As above, what matters is what happens above 280ppm. Go for it ….. if you feel like it.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 8:29 am

Perhaps you could explain what it is he doesn’t understand?


Apparently this:
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/einstein17/eng.pdf

Lrp
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 11:30 am

Dr. Roy has his own doubts on whether the small amount of warming is man caused or natural

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Lrp
April 23, 2021 12:00 pm

So do I. We don’t know how much is natural variation, so even if the measurements were accurate enough (I don’t believe they are) we still cannot derive how much is from CO2 (or any other source). But stating that it is zero is a non starter. That would be physically impossible. Feedbacks alter that number of course, and the secondary effects could well be negative rather than positive. But when you start with the premise that the value is ZERO, you’ve already lost me.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 1:52 pm

Please PRESENT EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that warming by atmospheric CO2 is ANYTHING BUT ZERO.

Hand-waving and mindless gesticulating, are not evidence.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 2:04 pm

“But stating that it [CO2 warming] is zero is a non starter.”

I don’t think anyone is doing that. I think people are complaining because claims about what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere is not backed up by any evidence, so people point that out.

I don’t think they are saying there is no evidence to be had, just that the alarmist have not produced any that shows CO2 has any significant effect on the Earth’s climate. And they haven’t. Mother Nature being the cause of the behavior of the climate is still the first choice, absent any evidence to the contrary.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 2:44 pm

Nobody is doing that? Look at the comment directly above yours 🙂

The alarmists are making a planet sized emergency over an anthill sized problem. That’s a problem and we should speak out against it. I have, there are many articles as well as comments by me on this blog, and I write under my own name. But when skeptics claim that the effect is ZERO, the alarmists use them to discredit all skeptics.

philincalifornia
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 6:48 pm

….. it’s not distinguishable from zero at current atmospheric CO2 levels.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 25, 2021 6:36 am

Again, I think what fred means is that the alarmists have not provided any evidence. He’s not saying it is zero, he is saying the alarmists don’t have the evidence to proof it is not zero.

Moller proposes that additional CO2 added to the Earth’s atmosphere would actually result in net cooling of the atmosphere, so according to that theory, the real number could be zero, or less than zero. It hasn’t been ruled out.

And none of that is to say that CO2 does not act like a greenhouse gas acts, it just might not act the way we expect when added to the Earth’s atmosphere.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
RickWill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 3:15 pm

I don’t think anyone is doing that.

I am very happy to go on the record that CO2 has Zero influence. For it to have an influence, there would need top be a “greenhouse effect” and that is a modern fable.

In April any year, the cooling coefficient for water vapour is 4W/sq.m/cm – stated differently every mm increase in atmospheric water vapour INCREASES cooling by 0.4W/sq.m. – water vapour is a very powerful cooling gas/liquid/solid in the atmosphere.

The reason earth has a radiating temperature of 255K is because OLR is most often emitted from an ice surface located at surface level to 12km up in the atmosphere over a tropical oceans.

On the flip side of the OLR exiting from cloud, that same cloud is more powerful in reflecting heat. Reflection dominates by a factor of 2. That is why atmospheric water provides cooling not heating.

The ocean surface temperature regulates to a limit of 30C and is never colder than -2C. Given the good distribution of water over the globe, it is unsurprising that the global average surface temperature is 14C or 57F; the mean of the extremes.

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
DMacKenzie
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 3:38 pm

“I am very happy to go on the record that CO2 has Zero influence.”
You would be wrong then. It has an effect on the altitude at which clouds rise into the troposphere. At top of troposphere 400 ppm CO2 radiates heat more effectively to outer space than 280 ppm did a century ago. This makes high cloud tops colder and radiate less heat into space, offsetting the more heat radiated to outer space by the additional CO2. Clouds win cuz they cover half the planet. Additional temp at surface, about 1 degree per doubling of CO2….but not really enough to worry about.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 4:15 pm

If what you are saying is true then why did the earth cool after the 30’s when CO2 output increased greatly?

Why are two of the land surfaces with the highest CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (the US and Siberia) experiencing DECREASING maximum temperatures and have been doing so for two decades?

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 5:52 pm

Because Tim, natural variability is most likely larger than the effects of CO2. We’ve had ice age earths in the past as well as hot house earths. Clearly natural variability is very large and it isn’t consistent in any given place.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 25, 2021 7:14 am

And exactly what causes this “natural variability”?

If it is natural variation then that would imply that CO2 is *not* the cause of warming because it was warmer in the 30’s when CO2 was lower!

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 5:07 pm

DMacK,
It is repeatedly said that gases like CO2 and water radiate heat to space near the top of the atmosphere and this is the dominant cooling effect to keep the globe from being hotter.
In the (impossible for Earth) case of an atmosphere that has no CO2 or water vapour, or all GHGs, would the earth be hotter or colder than now?
Asked in another way, can the earth get rid of heat by the atmosphere being a normal heat conducting system, with long-established heat flow mathematics applicable?

philincalifornia
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 6:49 pm

Evidence-free assertion

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 3:50 pm

The reason earth has a radiating temperature of 255K is because OLR is most often emitted from an ice surface located at surface level to 12km up in the atmosphere over a tropical oceans.

The reason earth has a radiating temperature of 255K is because the energy absorbed from inbound sources is 255K. This is basic fundamental physics defined by Stephan-Boltzmann Law which was quantified in the late 1800’s, which is used by engineers every single day to design and build a wide range of products that work as designed. You may as well argue that 2+2=4.09

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 5:01 pm

I go with RickWill on this, overall.
On millennial scales, the global temperature is nearly constant, remarkably so, depending on ones choice of ‘nearly’. A reasonable hypothesis says that any past perturbation has been met with a feedback that brings us back to normal. These feedbacks were not invented by a clever religious being like Gai or Mother Nature – rather, the earth exists in its present state of near-equilibrium by the relentless application of physics and chemistry. It just evolved, long long ago, to what we now see.
So, if the physics of CO2/IR radiation is shown in the lab to create some warmth, then we can assume at first pass that it will do likewise in the atmosphere. Some spectral records support this interaction. But that is only part of the natural scheme. It is plausible that those feedbacks act to return to the baseline, after CO2 has done its bit.
I do not deny that more CO2 in the air can warm. That is not the question to be asked. The question is, how do the feedbacks bring us back to baseline?
RockWill is one of several who have described mechanisms that are logically capable of allowing an overall atmospheric climate sensitivity of zero. Whether that is achieved dependss on the nature, strength, duration of the offsetting feedbacks.They exist.
Some will reply that CO2 and Temperature and IR have been measured to vary at millennial scale, so there is no constant baseline. My answer is that they are noise about the baseline, which given long enough, will always be the point of return unless something with enough energy perturbs the system beyond those noise limits, like a hit by a large asteroid. Buteven then, things eventually get back to before. If we can recover from the energy of a large asteroid impact, surely we can recover from the piddling energy of a bit of heated CO2. My position is that we do. Constantly.
That usual state includes oceans whose temperatures are seldom outside a 30C max -2C because they contact ice.
Geoff S

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 23, 2021 5:16 pm

I have no issue with RickWill (or you) claiming that the sum of all feedbacks returns us to a given baseline. None at all. In fact I support that assertion. But claiming that the initial effect of increased CO2 is zero is foolish and if he wants to advocate for his mechanism to return things to the baseline, by all means, do so. But for that he has to first admit that there is an initial effect that causes a departure that feedbacks eventually negate.

philincalifornia
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 7:09 pm

If someone claimed that and you were responding to that then I retract my previous replies to you, sorry. I missed it.

However, it doesn’t have to be a feedback necessarily. An intrinsic linearity will do it too. For example, the Calvin cycle is linear wrt CO2, so although a half-doubling (logarithmic) has had no measurable effect on anything climate-related, a linear 40 or 50% increase has had a major effect on the greening of the planet.

I don’t need to tell you this, but there are others looking in.

Lastly, is there a good paper on convection as it relates to this? I imagine that there are linear effects and possibly logarithmic effects.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 25, 2021 8:17 pm

Hi Phil – yes I as responding to primarily RickWill’s initial assertion. If you will scroll down to the bottom of this thread, he’s claiming that the earth reaches an average temperature of 288K (outbound radiance) on an input radiance that averages 255K. His assertion that emergent phenomena regulate earth temperature on a global scale has plenty of merit, I have my own version of that theory which shares a lot of similarities. But in my version I don’t have input energy that only averages 255K resulting in output energy that averages 288K. I have an explanation for that, he doesn’t. All his arm waving about how the oceans control the temperature results in nothing when he starts with the premise that energy in does NOT equal energy out.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 23, 2021 11:08 pm

But claiming that the initial effect of increased CO2 is zero is foolish and if he wants to advocate for his mechanism to return things to the baseline, by all means, do so. 

I have not stated the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is not observable in the OLR spectrum. 

What I am stating, very clearly, is that there is no “greenhouse effect” and CO2 plays no role in the energy balance.

Ocean surface has a regulated limit of 30C and and a minimum water surface temp of -2C. There is no “greenhouse effect” needed to warm the Earth. The warm surface is the result of the temperature control of the ocean surface and the good distribution of water.

You can look across three tropical oceans and observe the warm pools all regulating close to 30C. It is a function of how ice forms clouds. The clouds simply become more persistent as the level of free convection approaches the level of freezing.

The Ocean surface temperature on average peaks in July. That is when the cooling coefficient of water vapour is at its maximum at 4.2W/sq.m/cm. The total radiated heat loss from the global oceans, combined OLR and SWR, are increased by the addition of water to the atmosphere per attached chart; exact opposite of what water vapour is claimed to do. 

Not only the overall increase in heat loss with water vapour but the heat loss rises from 5.25cm to 5.75cm due to the persistent cloud formation over the warm pools.

The “greenhouse effect” is a myth, easily decimated by the evidence. 

Charts_July.png
Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 25, 2021 8:09 pm

If you are correct, then Stefan Boltzmann Law is wrong. I will go with Stefan Boltzmann which has been proven via lab experiment, repeatedly, for over 100 years and attempts to prove it incorrect have a 100% failure rate.

mcswelll
Reply to  RickWill
April 23, 2021 7:03 am

Wow, what a well reasoned response!

tygrus
April 22, 2021 11:42 pm

With enough models & model runs with different parameters, they have a model for all occasions & claim they accurately predicted the future. Any variation from the predictions were due to a lack of understanding (send more money) or unforeseeable natural variation (they make the human influence linear).

It’s like buying lottery tickets, one for every possible combination to make certain of a winning ticket in a draw. You can have the winning ticket, but you couldn’t predict the winning numbers before the draw.

Redge
April 23, 2021 12:05 am

While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority

That doesn’t mean you are wrong.

But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

The anti-human greens don’t care about the real problems the global poor face each and every day, they are too busy thinking of the children

Christina
Reply to  Redge
April 24, 2021 12:30 am

they are too busy thinking of the children

What children? Warmists are telling my generation not to have any lest we overpopulate our poor, doomed planet.

It’s sad, actually: As little as a hundred years ago it was normal that every mother buried a child or several. Now, for the first time in the history of mankind, for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years, we can expect our children to outlive us. And now they tell us not to have any.

Redge
Reply to  Christina
April 24, 2021 7:19 am

What children?

Their children.

Warmists are telling my generation not to have any…

They’re not saying they can’t have kids, they’re saying no one else can have kids.

I had a conversation with a member of Population Matters when it was The Optimum Trust.

It was clear his children and grandchildren were exempt from their diktat.

Last edited 3 months ago by Redge
High Treason
April 23, 2021 12:51 am

REAL science with a solid foundation makes accurate predictions of future events.
PSEUDOSCIENCE does not yield accurate predictions because the “science” is bogus. It sounds scientific, but it is not real science. The proof is always in the pudding.
If they are so certain about the “science”, then this chart shows very clearly how out of step the models are in predicting future temperatures. There appears to be only a couple of the low end prediction models that are even remotely close to observations, so the wildly inaccurate ones must be discarded and their assumptions analysed to see why they are so wildly WRONG.
To make real world policy based on modelling that is so clearly wrong is either criminal negligence or malfeasance. Personally, I do not believe anyone can be that genuinely incompetent to act upon clearly wrong data. Thus, it is malfeasance.
It is great that Roy Spencer has updated this chart. I would like to do a pin the tail on the donkey punt for the next update. For 2025, I am pinning .21 on the chart- just above the lowest of the models, which suggests a .3 degree increase in global temperatures for 2030, which is .6 degrees per century-a far cry from the fantasies that some trot out.

observa
April 23, 2021 1:22 am

“And yet while the weather bureau can’t forecast 24 hours ahead, and bureaucrats can’t run a Zoom chat, these world leaders and the climate activists they pander to, tell us they do know what will happen to the climate decades from now, and even better, they know how to control it.”

‘Welcome to the loopy-left era of Joe Biden’ (msn.com)

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  observa
April 23, 2021 4:31 am

Observation by a dissenting scientist:
Just about every climate claim made by politicians,
and even many vocal scientists,
has been either an exaggeration or a lie.

M Courtney
April 23, 2021 1:27 am

In the 30 years since the catastrophe was first predicted there has been no improvement in the estimate of climate sensitivity.
It was originally estimated to be 1.5°C and 4.5°C for a doubling in CO2 concentration.
That’s a large range compared to the 1°C we have had since the start of the industrial revolution. But it’s a good first guess. The climate is complex.

Yet 30 years on AR5 still had the same range.  There has been no progress on the basic question of climate science: How sensitive to CO2 is the climate?

This is a remarkable lack of achievement. In the last thirty years there has been tremendous advances in computer power. Thee have been new satellites providing new information. New buoys too (ARGO). And the shear number of people studying the field has grown exponentially as theprofile of climate science and it’s importance grew. It was a curiosity that became the harbinger of the end of the world. And yet, somehow, no progress has been made.

How?

Well, we need to look at the other fields that have made no progress; Ufology and cryptozoology.
Despite everyone now carrying phones with cameras and communications being global no new yetis have been caught, no aliens contacted and not even any new areas ruled out a homes of the sasquatch. No progress. Why?
Because there are no such things? No. Even if there are no such things we could make progress saying where they definitely are not. The problem is that the “scientists” in those fields want to believe. They are looking for proof that the thing is as they think it is. Not looking for what actually is.

The IPCC was created to understand how man is destroying the climate. Not if man is destroying the climate. They need to believe.

It also should be noticed that the IPCC has been greats for the funding and media prestige of climate science. But no other branch of science has sought to emulate it. And other branches of science have made progress.

Newminster
Reply to  M Courtney
April 23, 2021 2:07 am

The IPCC was created to understand how man is destroying the climate. Not if man is destroying the climate.

Hits the nail firmly on the head!

Charles Fairbairn
April 23, 2021 2:23 am

IMO the root cause of this lies in the models more or less all assuming that water provides a positive feedback to the GHE. A totally FALSE assumption.
The actual behaviour of water at phase change, particularly at evaporation, being largely ignored.

Richard M
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
April 23, 2021 12:12 pm

The real function of water vapor is a negative feedback as you indicated. CO2 absorbed energy mostly enhances evaporation which enhances the water cycle. This leads to more rain which helps enhance plant growth even more than just the CO2 fertilization. The rest of the CO2 absorbed energy goes into the enhanced biosphere related to the enhanced growth.

fretslider
April 23, 2021 2:28 am

The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” 

Isn’t exactly rooted in reality, how could it be.

Although the past week has been quite sunny, the air column has been quite cold. Today’s high in south London is a miserable 12C with a wind chill that probably knocks a degree or two off that.

This is very much like the [local] weather I remember back in the 1960s just before the cooling scare got traction. 

What makes this different is the new religious tendency which is most visible through the rigid groupthink and the corrosive and divisive identity politics; based on those crazy Critical theories. Heresy is punishable by excommunication (cancellation) and burning at the stake on Twitter etc in this new feudalist world.

The latest example of this new groupthink lunacy is:

BLM Activist on Columbus Shooting: Knife Fights Between Kids Are Totally Normal, No Need to Call the Cops

https://www.westernjournal.com/blm-activist-columbus-shooting-knife-fights-kids-totally-normal-no-need-call-cops/

That kind of insanity is off the scale.

Last edited 3 months ago by fretslider
April 23, 2021 3:05 am

Biden and Johnson both need to answer the basic question:
“In addition to the $trillions being spent by us, and planned to be spent, on current Climate Change Energy policies, how much will it cost the USA and UK to build the sealed greenhouses covering the whole of our countries, simply needed to make these policies effective. Others, such as China, and India are massively increasing their power generation capacities, and exporting it to Africa, South America and S.E. Asia and very largely using fossil fuelled systems, notably coal fired. Listening to the Climate activists and the ignorant politicians who do what these people want without understanding it but for their personal agendas, we will have to live in giant bubbles to protect us from all that increasing volume of nasty CO2!

April 23, 2021 3:59 am

In the Church of warming, a denomination of the main religion of Secular Socialism whose deity is the government, the climate models are little different than the Oracle of Delphi.

Bruce Cobb
April 23, 2021 4:26 am

50% of “global warming” isn’t, so the models aren’t even wrong. Manmade CO2 may indeed be responsible for some insignificant (and unmeasurable) amount of warming, say one or two tenths C. It’s an assumption and a guess only. That’s the best “science” can do. Pitiful. One thing is for sure though: 100% of all the fuss about “global warming, “climate change”, and the latest “climate crisis” is, at best, much ado about nothing.

2hotel9
April 23, 2021 4:46 am

The only profound crisis America is facing is the illegitimate take over of our government by radical leftist scumbags.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  2hotel9
April 25, 2021 6:48 am

You’re absolutely correct.

BallBounces
April 23, 2021 5:45 am

Imagine a “science” that asserts infallibility and then, after demanding billions from the public purse, e.g., overshoots a moon shot by ~50%. There would be outrage; demands for public hearings, accountability, etc. It would be mocked into oblivion. Then imagine if they doubled- and tripled-up…

TallDave
April 23, 2021 7:16 am

SST is testing the edges, but the tropospheric anomaly since 1979 is just not even close, particularly if we extend it to last month
comment image

CMIP5/6 is going to end up in the same memory hole as the embarrassingly wrong predictions that accompanied Hansen’s Scenario A presentation to Congress such as Dust Bowl droughts, massive crop failures (instead yields are at all-time highs), and feet of sea level rise

but once again, only after another 30 years of spending trillions more on this nonsense

and of course by then they’ll have new models

Last edited 3 months ago by TallDave
ResourceGuy
April 23, 2021 7:58 am

Yes, 50% of those predictions but climate cyclical that are only partly understood and captured in simple model handling make even the 50% a generous snapshot. Suppose it’s 20% well before the 2030 or 2035 or 2050 goals of the policy march? Will we have the same climate religion shrug at the facts at that point? Based on the Tim Wirth slip of the tongue behind the policy curtain, I would say the response will be “we still need to do it”.

DMacKenzie
April 23, 2021 8:20 am

Note that the models start going more “wrong” after the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991. The temperature drop over the next couple of years caused the modellers to adjust their aerosol parameters. It’s starting to look like they might have over-adjusted…..

Clyde Spencer
April 23, 2021 8:52 am

Deep Ocean Warming Could Be Mostly Natural

There is some interesting, new research that relates to this:

https://scitechdaily.com/energy-unleashed-by-volcanic-eruptions-deep-in-our-oceans-could-power-all-of-the-united-states/

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 23, 2021 9:44 am

The high pressures in the deep ocean will naturally cause a rise in the temperature of the deep ocean as well. It may not be much of a rise but then we aren’t talking about much of a temperature change being measured.

Jean Parisot
April 23, 2021 10:40 am

Are the configurations of the various model runs detailed so that an analysis of which parameters tend to produce results with lower warming profiles could be identified?

Jeffery P
April 23, 2021 11:29 am

Make no mistake — the science does not support the hysteria. The science shows there is no climate crisis.

But facts and reason be damned. President Depends Biden will sell our futures down the river in exchange for China’s promises to make changes in the future. China will continue to do what’s best for China. India, the same.

Expect an agreement worse than Obama’s deal with Iran — We paid them billions in hard currency and dropped sanctioned and in exchange Iran made promises the ayatollah’s never had any intention of honoring.

Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 12:58 pm

Models Predict
Project, please. Climate models can’t, and don’t, predict anything.

fred250
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 1:55 pm

Fantasize !

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 2:07 pm

Dr. Frank: I agree completely; yet the point of running a climate model past the present time is to glean information about what will happen in future, even if the authors ignore the lack of actual information conveyed because of uncertainty. From a statistical standpoint, I would say a better term is extrapolation.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 23, 2021 2:24 pm

Your statistical extrapolation has no physical meaning, Carlo. What’s the point?

They play games and misrepresent them as science.

Also, please call me Pat.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 3:56 pm

Pat, I mean extrapolation in the regression sense, where the standard deviation increases outside of the input data limits (and as anyone who has done polynomial curve fitting knows, the fitted curve itself can go wild outside of the data limits).

Pat Frank
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 24, 2021 9:37 am

Agreed. Information-free.

And, in truth, the polynomial fit inside the data limits conveys no causal information, either.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 2:39 pm

Pat, I’m sorry but the two words become synonymous in the hysterical media, so trying to put the cork back in that bottle is pointless. Not only are the verbs predict and project synonymous, the word guarantee also means the same exact thing. Just ask Sandy Cortez, Greta T, Rosie O’Donnell and sleepy Joe, if you don’t believe me.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 23, 2021 4:06 pm

That’s only because none of these people understand how to propagate uncertainty. It’s like it isn’t taught in schools anymore. It’s just make a guess and then assume its 100% certain!

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 23, 2021 7:29 pm

Congress should ban the sale of calculators, if only for the sake of the children and the children’s children. Plus, it’s the exact antithesis of virtue-signaling and is probably racist and misogynistic.

Defund calculator manufacturers.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 24, 2021 9:37 am

Still, Mickey, integrity demands we stick to our guns in the face of unreason.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 25, 2021 3:03 pm

True, we should try. And let’s get rid of the terms “ocean acidification” and “greenhouse gas” while we’re at it.

Bindidon
April 23, 2021 2:12 pm

Recently I wrote, with the inevitable bit of irony associated to the mostly negative reactions to my comments:

” I LOVE these DOWNVOTINGS! ”

But… I think WUWT would improve its credibility by removing these up/downvoting icons.

You just need to see that everything what fits to the average narrative gets plusses, and everything what doesn’t gets minusses.

I apologize for the critique, but this is kindergarten level.

J.-P. D.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Bindidon
April 23, 2021 7:30 pm

I downvoted you. Friday evening – kindergarten thinking rules.

Eben
Reply to  Bindidon
April 24, 2021 5:24 pm

Bindidong is a computer animator , he doesn’t know thermodynamix from aerodynamix, he draws straight lines through snippets of data extended 100 years to the future and calls it a forecast.
The whining about dislikes is awesome , how about you stay in the safe space on Facebook

Bindidon
Reply to  Eben
April 25, 2021 3:05 am

Eben

As usual, from Eben: stoopid superficial discrediting polemic instead of arguments.

I upvote you, Eben!

J.-P. D.

M Courtney
Reply to  Bindidon
April 26, 2021 3:11 pm

I entirely agree with you.
It’s a beauty contest where beauty is in the eye of the beholders. Most of whom are repulsed by ideas they disagree with.

On the other hand I’ve had +31 comment and -35 in the last week alone. So at least the variation gives a measure of unconventional thought.

If it reported the commenter’s standard deviation score as well as the comment score it would be of value. It would show independence of thought.

But as of now it is entirely worthless.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 24, 2021 8:28 am

Excuse me, but didn’t Joe Biden promise to US citizens during his campaign to be President, and even after he took office as such, to “follow the science”?

Oh well . . . it sounded good (to many) at those times.

Lark
April 24, 2021 6:55 pm

Environmentalist scientists have been predicting the world would end in 10 years for more than 40 now. If they’re only off by half, we’ve already been through it twice.

Thomas Dobson
April 24, 2021 8:29 pm

As concerns the “deep ocean warming” , if we do not know any of the natural sources of warming to the accuracy( one part in 300) then we do not know that there is an “inarguable” energy imbalance. We cannot make claims on the accuracy if we are not aware of all the variables. Define what is to be measured, define all variables affecting that measurement. Absolutely basic requirements for measurement. Without the second any attempt is mere speculation.

%d bloggers like this: