Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on October 6, 2021 by curryja |
by Judith Curry
A rather astonishing conclusion drawn from reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report.
Well, I’ve been reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors. Topics like ‘deep uncertainty,’ model ‘fitness-for-purpose’ (common topics at Climate Etc.) actually get significant mention in the AR6. Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).
If we harken back to the IPCC AR4 (2007), global climate models ruled, as exemplified by this quote:
“There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above.”
The IPCC AR4 determined its likely range of climate sensitivity values almost exclusively from climate model simulations. And its 21st century projections were determined directly from climate model simulations driven solely by emissions scenarios.
Some hints of concern about what the global climate models are producing were provided in the AR5. With regards to climate sensitivity, the AR5 included this statement in a footnote to the SPM:
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.
Perhaps more significantly, figure 11.25 in the AR5 included a subjective red-hatched area determined from ‘expert judgment’ that the climate models were running too hot. It is noted that the projections beyond 2035 were not similarly adjusted.
IPCC AR6 – global warming
The IPCC AR6 takes what was begun in the AR5 much further.
With regards to equilibrium climate sensitivity, the AR6 breaks with the long-standing range of 1.5-4.5C and narrows the ‘likely’ range to 2.5-4.0 C. Here is how that range compares with previous estimates and also the CMIP6 models (as analyzed by Mark Zelinka):
The AR6 analysis of ECS was influenced heavily by Sherwood et al. (2020). I agree with dropping the top value down from 4.5 to 4.0C. However, I do not agree with their rationale for raising the lower value from 1.5 to 2.5C. Without going into detail on my concerns here, I note that Nic Lewis is working on an analysis of this. But the main significance of AR6’s narrower range is the lack of influence of the CMIP6 ECS values.
A substantial number of the CMIP6 models are running way too hot, which has been noted in many publications. In its projections of 21st century global mean surface temperatures, the AR6 provides ‘constrained’ projections (including climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity that reasonably simulate the 20th century). Figure 4.11 from the AR6 shows the magnitude of the constraints. For SSP5-8.5, the magnitude of the constrained relative to the unconstrained CMI6 is 20%.
For the first time, CMIP6 includes actual scenarios of volcanic activity and solar variability. CMIP6 includes a background level of volcanic activity (no major eruptions) and an actual projection of 21st century solar variability from Matthes (2017) (discussed previously here), although few models are up to the task of credibly handling solar indirect effects. The AR6 only considers these baseline solar and volcano scenarios; the other volcanic scenarios (shown in Figure 1, Box 4.1 of the AR6) and the Maunder minimum scenario from Matthes (2017) are surely more plausible than SSP5-8.5 and hence should have been included in the projections.
The AR6 also acknowledges the importance of natural internal variability, in many of the Chapters. CMIP6 included Single Model Initial Condition Large Ensembles (SMILEs; section 6.1.3). However, there are substantial disparities between the large-scale circulation variability in observations versus most models (IPCC AR6 Chapter 3) – decadal variability that is too strong and multi-decadal and centennial variability that is too weak. A few of the models seem to do a pretty good job, notably GFDL.
Here are the ensemble forecasts for SSP2-4.5, including the projections from the individual models, the ‘constrained’ versus ‘unconstrained’ 90% range, and the AR6 best estimate (note this image was pulled from a CarbonBrief article). The AR6 best estimate is near the lower end of the entire range; this bias doesn’t allow much scope for natural variability (particularly of the multi-decadal variety) at the lower end of the model range to truly illustrate a realistic time range as to when we might pass the 1.5 and 2C ‘danger’ thresholds.
To minimize some of the problems related to constraining the projections, there is an emphasis on assessing impacts at different levels of global warming, e.g. 2, 4 degrees C.
Regional projections
The IPCC AR6 report provides a substantial emphasis on regional climate change (Chapters 10, 12). The focus is on a distillation of diverse sources of information and multiple lines of evidence, and indirectly acknowledges that global climate models aren’t of much use for regional projections.
Climate emulators
Since the Special Report on 1.5 degrees, the IPCC has increasingly emphasized the use of climate emulators, which are highly simplified climate models (see this CarbonBrief article for an explainer) that are tuned to the results of the global general circulation model based Earth System Models. These models are very convenient for policy analysis, enabling pretty much anyone to run many different scenarios.
And there’s no reason why this general framework couldn’t be expanded to include future scenarios of warming/cooling related to volcanoes and solar, and also multi-decadal internal variability. This framework could be very useful for regional climate projections.
However, climate emulators are not physics-based models.
Are global climate models the best tools?
Text from an essay I am writing:
In the 1990’s, the perceived policy urgency required a quick confirmation of dangerous human-caused climate change. GCMs were invested with this authority by policy makers desiring a technocratic basis for their proposed policies. Shackley et al. However, both the scientific and policy challenges of climate change are much more complex than was envisioned in the 1990’s. The end result is that the climate modeling enterprise has attempted a broad range of applications driven by needs of policy makers, using models that are not fit for purpose.
Complex computer simulations have come to dominate the field of climate science and its related fields, at the expense of utilizing traditional knowledge sources of theoretical analysis and challenging theory with observations. In an article aptly titled ‘The perils of computing too much and thinking too little,’ LINK atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel raised the concern that inattention to theory is producing climate researchers who use these vast resources ineffectively, and that the opportunity for true breakthroughs in understanding and prediction is being diminished.
Complexity of model representation has become a central normative principle in evaluating climate models and their policy utility. However, not only are GCMs resource-intensive and intractable to interpret, they are also pervaded by over parameterization and inadequate attention to uncertainty.
The numerous problems with GCMs, and concerns that these problems will not be addressed in the near future given the current development path of these models, suggest that alternative model frameworks should be explored. We need a plurality of climate models that are developed and utilized in different ways for different purposes. For many issues of decision support, the GCM centric approach may not be the best approach. However, a major challenge is that nearly all of the resources are being spent on GCMs and IPCC production runs, with little time and funds left over for model innovations.
The policy-driven imperative of climate prediction has resulted in the accumulation of power and authority around GCMs (Shackley), based on the promise of using GCMs to set emissions reduction targets and for regional predictions of climate change. However, the IPCC is increasingly relying on much simpler models for setting emissions targets. The hope for useful regional predictions of climate change using GCMs is unlikely to be realized based on the current path of model development.
With regards to fitness for purpose of global/regional climate models for climate adaptation decision making, an excellent summary is provided by a team of scientists from the Earth Institute and Red Cross Climate Center of Columbia University:
“Climate model projections are able to capture many aspects of the climate system and so can be relied upon to guide mitigation plans and broad adaptation strategies, but the use of these models to guide local, practical adaptation actions is unwarranted. Climate models are unable to represent future conditions at the degree of spatial, temporal, and probabilistic precision with which projections are often provided which gives a false impression of confidence to users of climate change information.” (Nissan et al.)
GCMs clearly have an important role to play particularly in scientific research. However, driven by the urgent needs of policy makers, the advancement of climate science is arguably being slowed by the focus of resources on this one path of climate modeling. The numerous problems with GCMs, and concerns that these problems will not be addressed in the near future given the current development path, suggest that alternative frameworks should be explored . This is particularly important for the science-policy interface.
JC reflections
In the AR5, the emphasis was on the Earth Systems Models, and their ever growing complexity in terms of adding more chemistry and some ice sheet dynamics.
In AR6, these complex climate models are revealed for what they are: very complicated and computationally intensive toys, whose main results are dependent on fast thermodynamic feedback processes (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds) that are determined by subgrid-scale parameterizations and and the inevitable model tuning.
With the very large range of climate sensitivity values provided by the CMIP6 models, we are arguably in a period of negative learning. And this is in spite of the IPCC AR6 substantially reducing the range of ECS from the long-standing 1.5-4.5C to 2.5 to 4C (reminder: I am not buying this reduction on the low end, more on this soon).
So what are we left with?
- Global climate models (ESMs) remain an important tool for understanding how the climate system works. However, we have reached the point of diminishing returns on this unless there is more emphasis on improving the simulation of modes of internal climate variability and advancing the treatment of solar indirect effects.
- We should abandon ECS as a policy-relevant metric and work on better understanding and evaluation of TCR and TCRE from historical data.
- In context of #1, I question whether the CMIP6 ESMs have much use in attribution studies.
- ESMs have lost their utility for policy applications. Policy applications are far more usefully achieved with climate emulator models. However, the use of climate emulators distances policy making from a basis in physics. This is particularly relevant for the legal status in various climate lawsuits of 21st century climate projections and the ESMs in various climate lawsuits.
While this is hidden in the Summary for Policy Makers, it is pretty significant:
“A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.”
Compare this to the statements in the AR5 SPM:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
Overall, the AR6 WG1 report is much better than the AR5, although I remain unimpressed by their increased confidence in a narrower range of ECS.
The bottom line is that the AR6 has broken the hegemony of the global climate models. The large amount of funding supporting these models towards policy objectives just became more difficult to justify.
This passage is confusing. The “best estimate” of climate sensitivity is not a climate projection and it isn’t meaningful to compare it to the range of projections in this way.
So are you claiming that climate sensitivity is not related to how climate is projected to change through time?
There’s scepticism, that’s a good thing.
But you are denying that climate science has any relationship with the real world at all. Not just lacking in use for policy-making.
I’m a sceptic. But I cannot follow you in your complete disavowal of the whole
science of climatology.
Of course I am not claiming that. I’m saying they are different things. The climate sensitivity is a metric of the climate response to doubling CO2, a projection is a potential outcome based on assumptions about how emissions change over time. Saying “the IPCC’s best estimate of climate sensitivity falls on the low end of emissions scenarios” is not a meaningful sentence. You could have multiple projected climate states with the same climate sensitivity.
So you are saying that climate sensitivity does not affect what actually happens. You are saying that the effect of doubling CO2 can lead to any result as it has no relationship with what actually happens.
That’s a complete denial of all climatology. It may be true but needs far more evidence before agreeing to it.
Surely more reasonable to say that doubling CO2 does affect what happens to the climate but not by much and other factors are far more important.
” Saying “the IPCC’s best estimate of climate sensitivity falls on the low end of emissions scenarios” is not a meaningful sentence.”
I’ll tell you what sentence is not meaningful.
This……
Curry….. ”More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.”
I do not get why his statement has 6 net negative votes. I get what he means. ECS = additional warming per doubling of CO2, which means that you need the time value for the doubling of CO2 x ECS to make a projection of the future range of warming at a certain time. Saying ” … falls on the low end of emissions scenarios” is saying ECS depends on CO2 emissions which makes ECS also a feedback. Is that sensible?
Also important is that it assume all other factors remain constant. Only the fast feedback are included. For example, aerosol emissions would effect the actual warming that occurs, but it doesn’t effect the ECS. This reason and the reason you mention plus other reasons are why projections are scenario based. Since models do not predict human behavior IPCC AR6 uses Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) in a if-then type analysis such that If humans behave in manner X then result Y might be expected to occur.
When I see the science of climatology I’ll agree with you M.Courtney, but what I see in the above article is nothing more than intellectual masturbation of Lukewarmers..
None of these models get anywhere near reproducing the early 20th c. rise.
That means they are fundamentally inadequate, do NOT model the real climate in any useful way and are not fit for purpose.
When a model can not reproduce a key feature of the data you already have, you have formal proof it is worthless. You throw it out and try again.
The IPCC and the entire scientific scam around “climate science” has been trying to hide this for that last 3 decades.
This is an overly simplistic view – many models get quite close to reproducing observed surface trends, as you can see in Judy’s graph above. Models also show increasing skill – they’re better able to capture different parameters like precipitation, for instance. One of the problems is in how we use ensembles to test model skill – the multi-model mean is not the “best estimate” projected surface temperature change, but that is how it’s typically treated (as Judy does here).
Another problem is the assumption that models must somehow be getting worse if the CMIP6 experiments yield many models with sensitivities that are too high – often what has happened is that improvements to the model are actually revealing a deficiency somewhere else (like going to fix a dripping faucet and finding a leaky connection, leading us to find yet another issue under the sink). The net sum of these activities produce better models, which is the entire point of evaluation.
To tilt at windmills?
That’s reassuring! Multiple problems in models that are only revealed after changing something else. Would you fly in a plane built entirely from a model with known problems?
Why don’t you attempt to communicate directly with Dr Curry with this input, and see what she replies with?
Posted the comment to her blog. I’m happy to be told I’m simply misunderstanding something, but as written it seems incorrect.
Please circle back to this post with an update should Dr Curry respond. Thanks.
Just had a look, can’t find any answer to your comment there at JC blog.
don’t hold you breathe. Comments there are like shouting in the dark. I’m sure JC has much better things to do than plough through largely inane and ill-informed blog comments.
IPCC is confusing…agree
Your confusion is confusing me. Climate sensitivity is essentially a measure of how sensitive the climate is to, predominately, increased CO2, no? The best estimate of sensitivity coupled with projected levels of CO2 increases will then produce climate projections, no? That formula and its intrinsic climate sensitivity is how they come up with their current projection of 2.5-4.0 degrees of warming, no?
Breaking the hegemony of global climate models
For the true believer the IPCC is lukewarm at best. The models are the gospel truth.
The models were made to be the likeness of a global religion
therefore breaking their hegemony would be to deprive them of their only purpose.(I warm,therefore i am)
Can not and will not happen.
Policy makers (politicians) require hobgoblins (H.L. Mencken). UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers are paid to give the policy makers hobgoblins. Rinse and repeat.
Is Dr. Curry saying that sense might be threading its way into some of the nuts?
I suspect there are a lot of folks, including unspoken climate scientists, that are more than a little worried about “global warming” having been carried a way too far. If some lengthy time of cooling arises they won’t be able to say, “See I told you so!”. I suspect the politicians are becoming frightened of the repercussions of renewable energy causing massive economic damage.
All together, a massive signal to SLOW DOWN!
Yes, there are storm clouds on the horizon.
In what way?
The new AR6 ECS range is between 2.5 and 4.0C.
Changed from 1.5 to 4.5C
Don’t you have any spaghetti graphs to average?
Raising the ECS range lower figure from 1.5C to 2.5C does not make sense.
They should lower the lower range to about 0.0C to take into account recent estimates which range from less than 1.5C and even to less than zero.
It looks to me like the 2.5C figure is just being used to scare people a little more. All recent honest estimates are much lower.
There is a radiative forcing from increasing GHGs.
This is likely countered by negative feedbacks of several kinds since the climate system is very stable. A negative f/b needs an input signal. Only an extremely high neg. f/b will return the input immeasurably close to the unperturbed value. ( Your 0.0C sensitivity. )
It is hard to see how you can end up with a neg. sensitivity. That IMO is total BS.
Any feedback needs an input signal unless the amplifier itself is oscillating. Have you any education in system analysis or electronics?
A negative feedback always subtracts from the input. What you just said just makes no sense. Can you design a feedback to maintain a constant level input” Certainly as long as the amplifier has a gain >= 1.
I think the bigger problem is that policy isn’t made on the content of the report, but on the strident tones of the SPM and its (most) zealous adherents/promotors … where the actual report itself and its nuances are just regarded as fine print to ignore ….
The UN IPCC is purely political. They pick the leaders of each working group based on politics because they represent every nation on Earth so every nation on Earth gets a say and a place at the table, and many of these people are not scientists but rather bureaucrats and climate activists and all sorts of people whose opiniion you should probably question.
The UN IPCC is not pure as the driven snow, they are contaminated by politics and leftwing ideology.
Human-caused Climate Change is a means to an end for them. They were created to find it, and they say they have found it, and thus the money and power keep rolling in.
Don’t believe these people. They have an agenda that does not fit with free people and they are using the facade of science to further their goals of gaining more power and more control.
Human-caused Climate Change is the biggest science scam in history.
A good book describing just how political the UN IPCC really is can be found here:
The Delinquent Teenager . . . by Donna LaFramboise
It was written in 2012, so is a little dated, but most of the same players are still at the UN IPCC today, and it’s operating just as she decribes.
These people at the UN IPCC, even including some scientists, have an agenda which is to sell Human-caused Climate Change to the world and they use all sorts of underhanded tricks to make the sale.
After reading this book, you will have no faith in what the UN IPCC is saying or selling.
The biggest science scam in history.
“In AR6, these complex climate models are revealed for what they are: very complicated and computationally intensive toys, whose main results are dependent on fast thermodynamic feedback processes (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds) that are determined by subgrid-scale parameterizations and and the inevitable model tuning.”
Judas Priest! What, besides a river of government money and the progressives’ desire for power, is holding this religion together?
A trillion dollar renewable industry that is maxxing out the value of existing oil gas and coal reserves as well?
the question is not whether Exxonb knew, its what they knew,and why they decided to stay quiet.
Why, media propaganda and censorship, of course.
Here are some quotes from my paper at
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
” Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur. ”
……………………………..
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/9 was + 0.25 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts”
The whole Net Zero campaign is based on the self delusions of the establishment consensus model forecasters. These should be openly challenged at COP 16
“These should be openly challenged at COP 16″
Good luck with this ..
Very good. Where have you been? I have come to similar conclusions. The Earth’s climate is very much controlled by periodic functions of ocean and atmospheric oscillations, sun oscillations, and orbital oscillations. These are all time functions with different frequencies, amplitudes, and phases. An orchestra if you will. Imagine trying to decipher that from a complex overall waveform! Radiation certainly plays a part in supplying energy, but that energy is distributed among very many parts before it leaves the earth.
Until some serious investigation of these oscillations with periodic analysis like Fourier, wavelet, and time series statistical methods we will continue to have models that invariably “blow up” in unrealistic fashion! Time function using basic sine and cosine descriptions have built in limits and won’t blow up. Sound like our climate that has survived million of years.
“Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700.”
So we will just continue in the general temperature downtrend that the Earth has been in for the last few thousand years, then.
The Millennial cycle is probably not a fixed cycle. It has been getting faster and faster. The MOC (global ocean current) was initially slowed to crawl by the melt water pulses at the end of the last glacial cycle. That is why the Holocene Optimum lasted 3,000 years. Since then the cycle has been speeding up. It is probably less than 1000 years now.
Harm from war on hydrocarbons exceeds harm from climate change – To date, “computer models” have avoided projecting the fatalities from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths to the 8 billion on earth without fossil fuels.
How dare pro-humanity individuals and governments support banishment of fossil fuels, when their banishment would be the greatest threat to civilization resulting in billions dying from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths?
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/07/harm-from-war-on-hydrocarbons-exceeds-harm-from-climate-change/
No one has ever died from climate change — but only from climate alarmism.
Climate change linked with increased suicide rates as extreme heat ‘profoundly affects human mind’
‘The thousands of additional suicides that are likely to occur as a result of unmitigated climate change are not just a number; they represent tragic losses for families across the country’,
…according to a new study.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-suicides-global-warming-mental-health-us-mexico-stanford-university-a8460111.html
Note ‘are likely to occur’
It’s complete tosh
Yes indeed — no doubt. I saw that entry too — which needs much greater distribution. David Buckel is just one victim … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/yFA7uoq
“How dare pro-humanity individuals and governments support banishment of fossil fuels”
No sane pro-humanity individual supports banning fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of insane people who have control of the levers of power. Our Dear Leader in the U.S. is a good example.
The disease is still spreading–From the Louisiana 2017 Master Plan [http://coastal.la.gov] for the Mississippi River, et al., …. For oysters below, but there are more.They proudly blast— “Unlike the 2012 Coastal Master Plan, the 2017 Coastal Master Plan modeling effort includes a fish and shellfish community modeling approach. A spatially explicit ecosystem model was developed in the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software suite to simulate fish biomass distribution through time and space.” Lots of passed away oyster biologists rolling, rolling, rolling……
“Even though HSIs quantify habitat condition, which may not directly correlate to species abundance, they remain a practical and tractable way to assess changes in habitat quality from various restoration actions…… Limitations of the model include high uncertainty in cultch cover across the coast, lack of a temperature response curve, and no connections between the previous year’s oysters’ suitability or long-term salinity trends. Despite these limitations, the model works reasonably well in predicting oyster habitat distribution in coastal Louisiana. ”
http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Attachment-C3-12_FINAL_02.20.2019.pdf
Models can do anything the model designers want. Remember Sim City? THis coastal marine biology model simulation is nothing more than Sim City level play toy for reaserchers looking for grants using their contrivances.
Don’t know about Sim City. Not sure they know what they want except make habitat by diversions and restorations but they are getting at least some pushback. The 2014 plan seemed much better. Models are diversions and they are accepting the coming heat and sea level rise without much, if any homework. I just saw more turbine sections being swung off a large ship, blades aren’t moving much lately.
So the IPCC is reducing the range of possible ECS, but making the low end about twice what it probably is? Even using GISS as a temperature record (which is inflated), Lewis and Curry had ECS at 1.2 or so.
Further, ECS claims are all nonsense in any event, since they (1) assume CO2 to be the cause of warming; and (2) ignore the climate record that shows that, once feedbacks are taken into account, CO2 has no demonstrable effect on the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming from 1910 to 1940, then cooling from 1950-1979 demonstrates the model attribtiuion of warming since 1980 is hogwash crap to sell an agenda.
That alludes to the real key point in the graphs. Their version of the ‘observed temperature’ pat of the time series shows little of that warming or cooling, and then adds back estimates and projection lines to make temperature seem flat before 1980.
The IPCC is trying to inject more fear into the debate raising the lower ECS up to 2.5C, and raising the upper range of some of the climate models. They are making it as scary as they can manage and no doubt are scaring some people.
Does anyone believe the ECS is higher than 1.5C?
I think that’s the upper limit and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a lot lower, especially since to date, nobody can detect the human-caused CO2 weather signal in the atsmosphere. Not to mention it is currently cooling globally even though more CO2 goes into the atmosphere every day. The alarmists say it is supposed to get warmer with more CO2, but that’s not happening. It’s back to the drawing board for the alarmists.
Deep down, they really like those 4+ numbers. If they didn’t, those results would been deep-sixed.
The scarier, the better, they say.
It was inevitable that climate models would veer into more complexity with no benefit other than to limit scrutiny and critical evaluation. That also comes from the Clinton rulebook of politics and win-the-day courtroom tactics to make it so complicated that few if any would be able to follow it behind the curtain.
Judith Curry is probably the only person who has read this baloney.
I read reports 1 – 4, not the Exec Summaries. The reports have always lacked any firm statistics to prove validity. I started reading 5 and gave up as it was mostly propaganda.
I am okay with the language, “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
Here in is why I am okay with this.
1 ) Half that increase is about what? 0.3 degrees Celsius? That is inline with what I would expect CO2 levels and land use changes by people to produce on a global scale. I can agree with this.
2 ) The changes in the formula’s to modify the raw temperature data is probably a form of anthropogenic forcing. Right?
Look – CO2 does have an effect on the chemistry and response of the atmosphere – I agree with the IPCC in this case that it is in fact extremely likely that half of the increase is due to man messing around.
I DISAGREE with their belief as to where the temperature will end up due to CO2. It can ONLY happen that way if water vapor is a MAJOR factor of increased positive feedback, which I am still out to lunch on. It seems as though it MAY be a minor positive feedback ( there are positive and negative loops within the water cycle. Right now there appears to be a SLIGHT bias toward warming based on observation BUT that may not be accurate.
HOWEVER maybe we are attempting to control the incorrect gas? Maybe we should be looking at how to mitigate water vapor? LOL. I honestly think it would be more helpful to design systems that pull water out of the air than to attempt to pull CO2 out of the air ( CO2 is plant food )
According to this data CO2 cools the planet:
CO2 operates out of the Stratosphere which means increases in concentration must increase the amount of energy radiated to space (reverse lapse rate). Until someone falsifies this data physics demands that increases in CO2 will cool the planet.
That’s not what graph shows. In fact, this graph shows that CO2 is an incredibly powerful GHG.
The graph in its original uncropped form comes from the Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC) website.
What this graph is showing is:
dT/dp = 1/cp * dF/dp
where
F(z) = Fup(z) – Fdown(z)
and
dF = F(z+dz) – F(z)
dT/dp < 0 is referred to as a radiative cooling rate. .
dT/dp > 0 is referred to as a radiative heating rate.
For example, at the surface Fup = 390 W/m2 and Fdown = 350 W/m2 for a net of Fsfc = 40 W/m2 and at TOA Fup = 240 W/m2 and Fdown = 0 W/m2 for a net of Ftoa = 240 W/m2 therefore dF = 240 – 40 = 200 W/m2 and dT/dp = 0.2 K/day assuming TOA is 70 km.
In plain English radiative cooling rates describe how quickly terrestrial heat wants to move out of the layer while radiative heating rates describe how quickly terrestrial heat wants to move into the layer. Overall terrestrial radiation transfers from surface -> troposphere -> tropopause -> stratosphere -> space therefore dT/dp < 0. That’s a good thing because if dT/dp > 0 then the Earth would have turned into a cinder long ago. Don’t conflate radiative cooling/heating rate used in this context with temperature cooling/heating.
Notice what effect CO2 has. CO2 is lowering the energy transfer rate in the troposphere and increasing it in the stratosphere. Specifically CO2 has lowered the rate in the troposphere from a peak of 8 K/day to as about 0.1 K/day in the troposphere while in the stratosphere it increased it from a peak of 0.5 K/day to over 400 K/day. CO2 resulted in a significant positive and negative energy perturbation in the troposphere and stratosphere respectively.
In short…this graph says that CO2 has a substantial cooling effect in the stratosphere and warming effect below the tropopause. Also note that the radiative transfer models that Clough and Iacono work on show that 2xCO2 has a +4 W/m2 radiative force which is even higher than the +3.7 W/m2 often cited.
I recommend you first learn about radiative transfer and then read the Clough and Iacono publication.
Yes, it is cooling the Stratosphere and insignificant warming below the Tropopause. More CO2 will cool it even more. Energy is energy and the more you radiate away from the planet the cooler it gets. Amazing the nonsense that some people will spew to support their religious beliefs.
Clough and Iacono’s radiative transfer model says more CO2 will cool the stratosphere and warm the troposphere and surface. In fact, their model says this effect is about 8% stronger than what the Myhre 1998 model says. If you think their graph and publication from it was based is nonsense then why did you post it?
Why are you spewing such obvious lies? The chart is a static chart. It shows the amount and location of CO2 radiated to space in 1995 when CO2 was around 360 ppm. There is no moving time component to the chart. Bdgwx is spewing nonsense.
The big question is why is he lying and doing it in such an overt manner? It appears I must be over a very delicate target. Bdgwx’s entire comment is just massive misinformation where it appears to be an attempt to sound sciency in the hope of dissuading readers from understanding the implications.
The reason I posted the chart is it shows the situation when CO2 was much lower. The effective radiation height (ERH), the average location of energy radiation from CO2 to space, was already so high in the atmosphere that it was in the Stratosphere.
The rest of my comment has nothing to do with the chart. It just applies standard physics and, humorously enough, standard greenhouse theory.
When CO2 went from 360 ppm to 420, where we are now, standard theory tells us we will see more energy absorption/emission and hence raise the effective radiation height (ERH). The key point is since that height was already in the Stratosphere at 360 ppm it MUST be even higher in the Stratosphere now. Higher in the Stratosphere means warmer due to the reverse lapse rate.
Physics requires radiating from a warmer temperature will lead to increased energy radiation to space. It is actually precisely the opposite effect that climate scientists have told us should warm the planet.
Simply put, more energy radiated to space is a cooling effect.
I suspect bdgwx also recognizes this fact and that was the motivation to create a big disinformation comment. I would ask the Mods to watch this person closely as he appears to be only interested in pushing an agenda.
bgwx is also a passionate defender of erasing the past by applying corrections and adjustments to historic temperature data, claiming that this reduces error caused by those stupid people in the past. He’s lying, of course.
I don’t think the past should be erased.
I don’t think that people in the past are stupid.
I never said those things. I never thought those things. And I don’t want other people thinking those things either.
You are lying, again. Of course you believe “adjustments” and “re-calibrations” should be performed to “better understand” old temperature data.
This is fraudulent.
I believe is that making adjustments to correct for errors should be done. What I do not believe is that the past should be erased or that people in the past are stupid. Note that making adjustments to correct for errors does not require erasing the past or thinking people in the past are stupid.
BTW…how does any of this relate to the Atmospheric and Environment Research groups LBLRTM, LNFL, RRTM, RRTM_LW, RRTM_SW, MonoRTM, and MT_CKD radiative transfer models that Clough and Iacono work on?
Duh, what do you think the climastrologers shove down the pipe when “tuning” these beasts?
Not only is it stupid, it is dishonest and fraudulent.
Correcting past recorded data is fabricating new data. Scientific research requires physical information for determining what, if any, correction factors should be applied.
Unless you have done detailed investigation into the site and calibration records for a given station, you have no physical evidence for making adjustments, especially over numerous years. Examining data and “deciding” it is biased is just not a legitimate reason for changing it. IT BE DISCARDED! Don’t try to justify unreasonable actions.
You are making the claim that the people in charge of the station DID NOT follow their own guidelines and did not recognize that their data recordings were in error for a substantial amount of time. No other conclusion can be made when claim the data is incorrect.
Iacono et al. 2008 (Clough is also an author) may help. It shows you what happens to both the radiative heating/cooling rate and the radiative forcings for the 2xCO2 scenario. Note that the radiative cooling rate increasing in the stratosphere and decreases in the troposphere. Also notice that the radiative forcing increases substantially throughout the whole column. Tack on a 20% H2O increase and we’ve got a rather large positive energy perturbation.
Richard M said: Simply put, more energy radiated to space is a cooling effect.
That’s true, but that’s not what that graph is showing. What the graph is showing is that the transfer from surface -> stratosphere is smaller while stratosphere -> space is larger.
More deflecting and lying. I never said “The chart” showed anything other than a static view of CO2 energy emissions back in 1995. You have to apply simple physics as I already explained. It is the application of physics that demands that increases in CO2 will lead to cooling. In fact, you’ve already admitted this several times.
BTW, the chart also shows very little energy was radiated to space from CO2 in the Troposphere back in 1995 so it can’t decrease by any significant amount as you tried to lie. From what I can tell over 99% of the energy radiated to space by CO2 molecules occurs in the Stratosphere. That energy is increasing as demanded by physics. Doesn’t matter what is happening to the less than 1%. It’s not going to have any effect on water vapor either. It was insignificant in 1995 as the chart shows. It would be even more insignificant today because more CO2 in the Stratosphere would intercept some of that radiation. That is why the ERH increases.
This is all very simple and basic. You have provided nothing but lies and false assertions without a shred of evidence to support them.
It’s pretty obvious why you are trying to deflect from this very basic science, This science is pure falsification of AGW.
Something still isn’t clicking. Let’s see if we can walk through this together step by step.
The equation for radiative heating/cooling rate is as follows.
dT/dt = 1/cp * dF/dz
dF = F(z+dz) – F(z)
F(z) = Fup(z) – Fdown(z)
This is in units of K/s. Now the chart is in units of K/s.cm which is only because it is showing the spectral radiative heating/cooling rate. We can probably agree that it is not important for understanding the concept of radiative heating/cooling rate in K/s though so lets focus only on the entire effect for now.
Based on the equations above what makes dT/dt increase or decrease?
Radiative Cooling Time (gsu.edu)
Here is a more explanatory explanation for the time it takes for an object to cool. The use of variables is better defined than what you have shown. A link from you showing where you have obtained the formula and a definition of each would be better for all involved.
Dr. Sokolik’s Atmospheric Radiative Transfer lectures is a good source. Lecture 11 discusses the Clough and Iacono 1995 publication. There is a good diagram showing how the equation represents an atmospheric layer.
I just noticed that…
dT/dp = 1/cp * dF/dp
…should have been…
dT/dt = 1/cp * dF/dz
The CMIP6 models produce implausibly greater future warming estimates than their five predecessors. The cynic in me says that this is “a feature, not a bug“. They are needed to give support to the increasingly strident levels of public discourse about “climate” and the increasingly radical commitments from our leaders to achieve “net zero” in ever shorter time frames.
Dr. Curry is being too kind to the IPCC.
Definitely too kind. I think the IPCC has an agenda, and it’s not about the science. The scarier they can make things sound, the better for them, and that’s just what they are doing. Based on no evidence whatsoever. Just “High-CONfidence”.
Section 4.2.5, “Quantifying Various Sources of Uncertainty”, page 4-19 :
NB : In section 1.4.1, “Baselines, reference periods and anomalies”, on page 1-54 you will find :
In this context, “quantifying” should be seen as “hand-waving”.
With respect to the AR6 change in ECS from 1.5-4.5 to 2.5-4.0, this smacks of a political compromise not a scientific determination. I envision some “committee members” saying that the upper limit is embarrassingly high and needs to be reduced. But the activist say they will not go along with any reduction of the high end unless the low end limit is increased twice as much. Since they all recognize that not being able to reduce the factor of 3 range in the ECS has been a problem for 40 years, they all are happy to go along with this political compromise. I guess that’s the way science is done these days.
I’m very glad to see that Dr. Curry and Nic Lewis plan to challenge this.
You may be on to something. The ECS estimate hasn’t changed for 40 years, and the alarmists have been criticized successfully in the past for it, so this may also be an attempt to silence that criticism. That doesn’t make their new numbers valid, though. The old lower limit estimate is a lot closer to the truth, than the new lower limit estimate, from all indications (other, lower estimates).
It’s scare tactics. What else do the alarmists have? They don’t have any evidence, so they resort to hyperbole and propaganda.
Hard to swallow
“The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C.”
That amount of warming is not noticeable with normal human senses and is almost certainly within the range of natural variability. I am using IPCC fudge language here.
“natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C“
They are saying that change from natural drivers and internal variability have the average effect of nothing at all. That is the same as saying all climate variation is caused by human activity alone. Unbelievable arrogance. Next we will be changing the course of galaxies and defying black holes.
From long observation I am convinced that human activity does change climate. The changes seem to be primarily local, somewhat regional, and some tiny part may be global.
What I am not certain of is whether the net effect is to increase global temperature or to reduce the amount of natural increase.
What I am certain of is that CO2 is not the primary driver of human induced climate change.
”I am using IPCC fudge language here.
“natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C“”
Yeah these kinds of statements are only worthy of wrapping up your fish.
“The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors.”
Again that ghastly misused word sophisticated!!! 1925 Oxford Pocket Dictionary definition……”Sophist” – A paid teacher of philosophy in ancient Greece, a reasoner willing to avail himself of fallacies that will help his case. “Sophisticated” – Spoil the simplicity or purity or naturalness of, corrupt or adulterated or tampered with!!! It comes from the Greek word Sophos meaning wise!!! The sooner that word is struck from the English language the better IMHO!!!
I’m always reminded of George Carlin’s commentary about people who didn’t bathe regularly and “smelling like a pile of dog shit,” with reference to which he adds “THOSE people are SOPHISTICATED!”
One of the reasons that the CPC forbade Bitcoin mining in China recently was too much coal electric power consumption for their huge computer farms (the other one to look good for COP26 next month).
Maybe the West could follow by forbidding CCC computer modelling as that also uses huge quantities of electricity and inevitably causes a lot of extra CO2. Do it if only for COP26…
<b>or else Greta will castigate the West again – never China </b>
Using one girl overcoming Asperger by making ‘friends’ around the globe for the CO2 fear campaign is such a sick PR stunt. Millions of teens get depressed by this Apocalyptic nonsense.
to today’s younger crowd, the use of “sick” has flipped in meaning to us older folks think it means.
The next generation always develops new slang.
“ One of the reasons that the CPC forbade Bitcoin mining in China recently was too much coal electric power consumption for their huge computer farms (the other one to look good for COP26 next month).”
And you know this how?
I just want to know how Corn Products Corporation (CPC) managed to get so powerful in China 😜
Does the CCP know about this?
Except the models have got so good they have won the Nobel prize.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/06/opinions/physics-nobel-climate-change-lincoln/index.html
The Nobel Price was given to scientists work in the 60ies, not because of the actual models.
The article I read specifically mentioned one guy’s use of water vapor to enhance the unimpressive warming of CO2 in the models. Swedish socialist politicians, after corrupting the Peace Prize, now corrupt the science prizes. They gave the Economics Prize to William Nordhaus before they realized that his work debunked climate alarmism (optimum of 3.5 C temperature rise to 2100).
The Nobel peace price is awarded by Norway. This year today!!! A nation benefiting of hydrocarbon incomes, and still doing so, directly as well as indirectly via the “oil fund”.
https://www.nbim.no/no/
Use 1 €=10 NOK or 1$=8.5 NOK
Obama won a Nobel prize for peace while he droned brown people in the Middle East…
Nobel is not your mother’s Noble
Why the down votes??? I think I have been misunderstood. I don’t agree with either the national geographic article or the CNN opinion piece, and I never saw any connection between the physicists and climate from the report I read on the BBC’s website. In fact I am very disappointed with Don Lincoln, I value his presentations about physics on YouTube but not his opinions on this.
Probably should have put a /sarc tag at the end.
<agreement >
Yep, I should have
</agreement >
They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Yassar Arafat, Mr. “We’ve run out of rockets, explosives and bullets! Start the peace talks!” After the resulting “cease fire” gave the PLO the enough time to “restock,” their attacks would begin anew.
The Nobel committees’ fawning and awards of “prizes” lost all credibility after that.
More quotes from https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“Eschenbach 2010 (8) introduced “The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis – how Clouds and Thunderstorms Control the Earth’s Temperature”. Eschenbach 2020 (9) in https://whatsupwiththat.com/2020/01/07/drying-the-sky uses empirical data from the inter- tropical buoy system to provide a description of this system of self-organized criticality in which the energy flow from the sun into and then out of the ocean- water interface in the Intertropical Convergence Zone results in a convective water vapor buoyancy effect and a large increase in OLR This begins when ocean temperatures surpass the locally critical sea surface temperature to produce Rayleigh – Bernard convective heat transfer.The short-term energy flows involved in this process provide the negative feedback which has been the earth’s natural thermostat since the Cambrian. This mechanism is further elucidated by Mulmenstadt J. Salzmann M. et al 2021 “An underestimated negative cloud feedback from cloud lifetime changes” (10 ) says “As the atmosphere warms, part of the cloud population shifts from ice and mixed- phased (cold) to liquid (warm) clouds. Because warm clouds are more reflective and longer lived, this phase change reduces the solar flux absorbed by the earth and constitutes a negative feedback.)
Hansen et al NASA 1981 in “Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide” (11) reviewed the data bases, algorithms and forward projections of six simple GCMs says:
“The global warming projected for the next century is of almost unprecedented magnitude. On the basis of our model calculations, we estimate it to be 2.5°C for a scenario with slow energy growth and a mixture of non-fossil and fossil fuels…… the predicted global warming for a given CO2 increase is based on rudimentary abilities to model a complex climate system with many nonlinear processes.”
The Scientific Report of the1985 UNEP organized Villach meeting (12) said:
“….. unequivocal, statistically convincing detection of the effects of changing CO2 and trace gas levels on climate is not yet possible.” yet, based on this report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up, to examine the human contribution to global warming.
The First IPCC Assessment Report 1990 – Policymaker Summary of Working Group I science section (13) stated: “ …The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.” In spite of this lack of empirical evidence the 1992 Rio meeting produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Agenda 21 (14). Agenda 21 was designed as an action plan with the aim of keeping greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that was supposed to prevent dangerous man-made global warming. The IPCC AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (15): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The claim was nevertheless made that the UNFCCC actions proposed in Agenda 21 can control temperature by controlling CO2 levels.
Fyfe et al 2016 in “Making sense of the early 2000s warming slowdown” (16) say: “Newly identified observational errors do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s–1990s. Hansen et al 2018 in “Global Temperature in 2017” (17) said “However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus.”
The Hansen 2018 comment is amazing. The reality is that the first 3 of the 10 years do indeed show a warming hiatus but confirm that earth is past the peak of the solar millennial activity cycle which occurred in 1991+/-.
It’s progress, but climate models are still garbage.
So, well before humans could have had any possible affect on climate (say, before 1800? 1700?) , there were periods of very cold climate (e.g., ice ages, Little Ice Age, etc), very warm climate (Medieval Warm Period, mid-Holocene Warm Period, etc) , and pretty much everything in between.
Which climate models have been able to replicate these historical climate periods?
If not, why not?
If models cannot replicate the historical climate, how can anyone presume climate models can predict the future climate?
After all, most of earth’s and the climate’s history occurred well before humans even walked the earth or had any possible affect upon the climate; thus one less variable to consider.
Forgetting about climate models for the moment, can anybody just explain what actually caused the wide variations of earth’s climate over the last, say, 50 million years?
If not, why not?
And if not, does that not indicate that the mechanisms that actually drive climate are not yet well known?
If climate models are accurate – supposedly based upon “first principles,” what is this nonsense about “tuning” the models?
Is not “tuning” finagling with the model to produce a desired result?
How is this science?
It’s merely a veneer of science intended to coat the poison pill of a socialistic march to One World governance.
Correct, John Tyler. Their main achievement has been convincing others of their competence, when they actually have next to zero.
Their competence score is less than zero.
This is the logical flaw at the heart of the CAGW sc@m: since climate has varied within less than 10 000 years from an Ice Age to the warmth of the Holocene Thermal Optimum in the absence of any human intervention, why does anyone believe this trace gas has ANY effect?
Let’s see if I have this right. Change the recorded temperature record with arbitrary adjustments that are highly correlated with changes in CO2 concentrations. Train the models to the CO2-adjusted temperature record. Project the bogus sensitivity to CO2 into the future. Create a worldwide panic about CO2 concentrations. Line the pockets of the select few from grant money and nonsensical subsidized “renewable” energy scams. Did I miss anything?
Nailed it
Nailed it in one.
You definitely nailed it.
Didn’t miss much that I can see.
In a few days, a huge spot of Arctic air will be over Europe. Temperatures will be as they usually are in November.
Another strong drop in solar wind speed is seen.
A strong drop in solar wind speed equates to?
Southward intrusion of the stratosphere and the meridional jet stream.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Regions of strong PV gradients on isentropic surfaces can act as semi-permeable transport “barriers” to chemical tracers such as ozone. During the winter the air inside these stong PV gradient areas are isolated from the air outside of the PV gradient area.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
“During the winter the air inside these stong PV gradient areas are isolated from the air outside of the PV gradient area. ”
This is very important information. It means that ozone falling from the stratosphere causes ripples in the upper troposphere.
It’s been my experience that cold air intrusions from the arctic are an annual event in the U.S., sometimes we will get two of them in a fall/winter season here, so I’m still not sure how the solar wind speed relates to this because I assume the solar wind speed varies from one winter to another, somtimes higher, sometimes lower, yet we get the same basic weather each winter.
Ozone is diamagnetic, unlike O2, which is paramagnetic. This is why ozone is repelled from the Arctic Circle when it is hit by the magnetic field of the solar wind.
Then the jetstream accelerates and becomes latitudinal.
Try observing it, as I did. Of course this is just a hypothesis, but my observations indicate that a stronger solar wind gives an extra boost to the jetstream.
“Ozone is diamagnetic, unlike O2, which is paramagnetic. This is why ozone is repelled from the Arctic Circle when it is hit by the magnetic field of the solar wind.”
There’s something new for me to think about.
“During the winter the air inside these stong PV gradient areas are isolated from the air outside of the PV gradient area.”
So, the ozone builds up in those areas behind the barrier?
Yes.
I just saw a weather forecast for large amounts of snow in the western and central U.S.
Yeah, but Ireland and Northern UK will be hottest whatever evah!
There are clear signs of blocking circulation to the north. Both low solar activity and an easterly QBO favor blocking.
Thank you for finally putting in a vertical line to demark the information on the chart between historical and the date of the models. I have been asking for people to do this for years. I think it is a critical piece of information to help interpretation of the graph. As I have argued before, failing to do that leads some people to think the models have predictive power that they clearly do not have.
I see,that was a part of the Report.
With the failure of the “water vapor is what done it” in the CMIP3&5 hot spot fantasies, CMIP6 moved onto cloud amplification to drive fear of climate breakdown. Have to keep tuning that elephant’s trunk wiggle to keep the money flowing. Lies, damned lies and UN IPCC CliSciFi models.
“With the very large range of climate sensitivity values provided by the CMIP6 models, we are arguably in a period of negative learning”.
That’s partly because there is no such thing as “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” in a multivariable non-equilibrium system like the climate. It is an abstraction of the models.
In the real world, prod it slightly, and it may bounce around all over the place. Or maybe not. They have still demonstrated next to no skills in modelling the entire system, ignoring the cautions of Lorenz.
“negative learning” sums the entirety of the IPCC outputs post AR1 release 30 years ago into one term.
The entire AR6 is just another tome that uses science results and then a whole lot of magic to analyze the question of how many dancing angels can fit of the head of a pin. And then to make the output result sound like science.
“Not fit for purpose” describes not only the CMIP models but the entirety of the IPCC process. Unless of course the “purpose” is to justify a rush to a socialistic One World governance and squashing the West’s economic hegemony of the last 400 years.
Erm, why don’t we just run with the UAH and GSS satellite records which steadily show 1.4degsC a century increase. It’s long enough to have become climate not weather. Given the accompanying rise in CO2 which will continue at c. 2 ppm a year, nothing seems to have changed? All the risks are cooling ones, including the macro Holocene decline. Don’t worry about a Younger Dryas, just keep quite calm.
Oh, and further to. Do take a look at the AR6 Hockey Stick fraud exposed by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. For me, that overwhelms any discussion about GCMs. Who allowed it to tarnish the reputation of all those IPCC worker ants?
Ed Hawkins, University of Reading, has updated figure 11.25 in IPCC AR5 annually with the latest observational data. It is here:
Without the recent Super El Nino, even the red-hatched bottom would be in trouble. Give it a couple of years. Anyway, “experts” had to arbitrarily reduce near-term warming, all without reducing the models’ obvious long term fantasies. I wonder how time will treat the CMIP6 speculations.
It’s more of an art form.
This is the RSS satellite plot of global T compared to the 5% to 95% range (yellow) of CMIP-5 climate simulations:
The lows are already exceeding the uncertainty levels of the projections. That should be a tip-off that something is terribly out of whack. As long as the actuals stay in the uncertainty interval, one can always argue there is no evidence to disprove anything. Once they begin to exceed the limits, that argument is moot.
Not to mention that averaging climate model outputs has no technical basis, it certainly doesn’t gets closer to a “true” value.
Your last paragraph – AR5 reported that total global warming between 1951 and 2010 was about 0.5 degC, so the ‘more than half’ caused by humankind is only 0.25 degC, with zero before 1950. So AR6’s estimate of 1 to 2 degC increase caused by us is a massive increase, 4 to 8 times. Judith, is the evidence there to support this?
If modeling climate was anything near to a realistic simulation, there would be no CIMP1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 at all.
The fact that there are is solid evidence of guessing being used to create political policy.
The fact that they only compare their results to each other’s models and not to observation tells us all we need to know about what they are worth.
They’re always keen on volcanoes, even tho hardly any significant activity has occurred since 1992, & even that had minimal effect. The reason is to justify their way-overestimated effects from aerosols, which justifies more & more Draconian regulations.
AND provides their convenient excuse for CO2’s inability to stop the global cooling that induced the last “human induced climate catastrophe” that wasn’t human induced either.
Yes, the alarmists seem to be trying to introduce aerosol arguments into the conversation to explain past cooling and the cooling that looks like it is coming in the future.
They want to cover their bases, but human-derived aerosols, are not like volcanoes which inject large amounts of material into the upper atmosphere where they actually do have an effect on temperatures, cooling the Earth for a year or two if enough material is put into the atmosphere. But human-derived aerosols don’t go high enough in the atmosphere to affect things the way a volcanic eruption affects things. The aerosol promoters just pretend they have the same effect. That’s what they are doing here when they mention aerosols.
I went all through the 1970’s waiting for the Human-caused Global Cooling promoters to provide some evidence for their claims and I *never* saw one shred of evidence. And I’m expecting the same thing this time. It’s all assumptions and assertions, just like the CO2 BS.
As a rule I never expect any good to come from the fine print. Dr. Curry has shown me to be wrong, at least in this case.
The symbiotic relationship between climate modelers and policy makers in government reminds me of the old 1980s television series produced by Jim Henson called “Fraggle Rock”. The show featured several “species” that lived in a cave, called the “Fraggles” and the “Doozers”, among others.
The symbiotic relationship between the Fraggles and the Doozers was that the Fraggles loved to eat rock candy but preferred to stay in their cave, and the Doozers (supposedly emulating the US Army Corps of Engineers, with their little hard hats and industrious ways) loved to build structures out of rock candy in the cave, no matter how useless they might be, other than as food for the Fraggles.
Indeed, the Doozers were ecstatic to see the Fraggles eating and thus destroying their rock candy structures, because that meant that the Doozers then had an excuse to go and build more of them. And of course, the Fraggles were happy as pigs in you know what to have the Doozers constantly creating their favorite treat so conveniently in the cave.
It’s the same symbiotic between climate modelers and policy dweebs – the climate modelers keep building models, and the policy dweebs keep consuming those models, expounding on the profound meaning of the models that just happen to support their proposed policies. And thus the policy dweebs keep ordering ever more and more climate models to be constructed. And the climate modelers are ecstatic to have their models “consumed”, and ever more ordered to be produced.
And on and on it goes.
From the article: ““A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.””
Total BS.
The warming from 1910 to 1940 was equal to the warming from 1979 to the present, yet the IPCC does not say the 1910 to 1940 warming was mainly driven by CO2. So if one period can warm at the same magnitude without CO2, then why would we need CO2 for a similar warming at a later time. Just because there is more CO2 in the air now than then? That’s not good enough!
These alarmists can say these things because the actual temperature profile of the world has been bastardized and distorted to tell a lie about the climate instead of the truth. If they acknowledged that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, then they could not make all these wild claims about the climate.
The Hockey Stick Lie enables even bigger lies. Like AR6.
And there is no evidence that human-derived aerosols are doing anything to the Earth’s weather. There wasn’t any evidence of it in the 1970’s, which the Human-caused Global Cooling crowd was advocating, and there’s still no evidence of it now. The alarmists have just recently found it convenient to put aerosols in the conversation to try to explain away unexplained cooling in the temperature record.
There’s no evidence that human-derived CO2 or aerosols are detrimentally affecting the Earth’s atmosphere. None. These are all unsubstantiated assertions. Assertions are not evidence of anything.
look at their graph above, the 1910-1940 warming has been thoroughly memoryholed
data has been fit to model
people living in the 1970s would have laughed themselves silly if you showed them the AR6 graphs of their era
“look at their graph above, the 1910-1940 warming has been thoroughly memoryholed”
I know it. I’ve been railing against the data manipulation for a long time.
If the alarmists didn’t have these bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick charts, they wouldn’t have anything to promote their Human-caused Climate Change scam.
It seems to me that it is futile to model a chaotic system. The more parameters and physics you put in, the more chaotic the output will become. What’s needed is to model the ‘guard rails’ of this system. Over millions of years, despite swings of every variable including CO2, the climate doesn’t seem to go above or below certain limits.
You would expect a truly unconstrained chaotic system to have spun out in some direction or other, but it hasn’t. What are the constraints (high and low)? Under what circumstances do they kick in? Are they simply negative feedbacks to the current trend, or truly driven by external forces?Classic example: ‘Arctic death spiral’ that appears to have slowed, maybe stopped, despite the so-called theory.
I agree with Dr Curry. What’s needed is funding for true theoretical research on Climate. Then maybe they’ll know WHAT to model.
The IPCC realised this around the turn of the millennium, and actually explicitly laid out their reaction in “the fine print” of chapter 14 of the TAR (2001) :
Note that it is the IPCC that gets to decide what is “essential”, as well as what “must be” done in response.
AR6 merely confirmed the above (as did AR4 and AR5, if you looked closely), albeit indirectly and with a small evolution in the definition of the phrase “long-term” over the last 20 years.
‘Exactly how this ecological enigma came about has baffled scientists. But now, an international, multidisciplinary team of researchers has revealed that this out-of-place ecosystem began growing around 125,000 years ago, when sea levels were much higher and the ocean covered most of the region.
“The most amazing part of this study is that we were able to examine a mangrove ecosystem that has been trapped in time for more than 100,000 years,”‘
Mysterious Mexican mangrove forest is ‘trapped in time’ hundreds of miles from the coast (msn.com)
It’s called climate change boofheads and obviously the plants ate up lots of CO2 or something like that causing global cooling and the sea level to drop. This stuff is common consensus science stoopids. Just ask the IPCC.
A case of reality bites.
The Adjustocene is eminently flexible and contextual.
No one paying attention doubts that the planet has been warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age. The mistake is thinking that CO2 increase contributed to it. NASA/RSS accurately measured and reported average global water vapor Jan 1988 to Jan 2021. http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt As shown in this graphic, measured WV is about 31% more than calculated in GCMs and about twice as much as possible from measured planet warming (net result of all feedbacks and forcings). The GCMs are faulty. The measured WV increase can explain all of the warming attributable to humanity. Basis for the graphic is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
In the Church of Warming, climate models are the equivalent of the Oracle of Delphi.
the SSP 2-4.5 graph is a bad joke
in the UAH lower tropospheric data you can draw a straight line that hits monthly temperatures in both 1980 and 2021
lol on the graph above it would be a 45 degree line
sure
but of course any model that actually followed the satellite-era warming trend wouldn’t produce enough policy juice
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Min Max
well-mixed GHGs 1.0 2.0
other human drivers -0.8 0
natural drivers -0.1 0.1
internal variability -0.2 0.2
Total -0.1 2.3
So the overall effect of these factors could be negative?
I wonder what the red line means after 2031?
Now the solar flux 10.7 cm looks like this:
For comparison, a plot of the solar flux F 10.7 cm in the 23rd and 24th solar cycles? Why doesn’t Canada make this graph available?
?itok=0IrM45vm
The stratospheric polar vortex is just developing in the north, and already a strong anomaly is visible. You can see that the center of the vortex is shifted over Siberia, and there is a surplus of ozone over the Bering Sea that is blocking circulation in the stratosphere.
The low seen in the North Pacific will now move toward the Bering Strait.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
During the winter season, the polar vortex determines the circulation in the upper troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml