Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As Russian Arctic towns struggle with an unexpected early hard freeze, and Northern Europe struggles with harsh temperatures, climate scientists have announced that rain will dominate Arctic snow events by 2060.
Rain to replace snow in the Arctic as climate heats, study finds
Climate models show switch will happen decades faster than previously thought, with ‘profound’ implications
Damian Carrington
Environment editor@dpcarrington Wed 1 Dec 2021 03.00 AEDTRain will replace snow as the Arctic’s most common precipitation as the climate crisis heats up the planet’s northern ice cap, according to research.
Today, more snow falls in the Arctic than rain. But this will reverse, the study suggests, with all the region’s land and almost all its seas receiving more rain than snow before the end of the century if the world warms by 3C. Pledges made by nations at the recent Cop26 summit could keep the temperature rise to a still disastrous 2.4C, but only if these promises are met.
Even if the global temperature rise is kept to 1.5C or 2C, the Greenland and Norwegian Sea areas will still become rain dominated. Scientists were shocked in August when rain fell on the summit of Greenland’s huge ice capfor the first time on record.
The research used the latest climate models, which showed the switch from snow to rain will happen decades faster than previously estimated, with autumn showing the most dramatic seasonal changes. For example, it found the central Arctic will become rain dominated in autumn by 2060 or 2070 if carbon emissions are not cut, instead of by 2090 as predicted by earlier models.
…
“What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay there,” said Michelle McCrystall at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who led the new research. “You might think the Arctic is far removed from your day-to-day life, but in fact temperatures there have warmed up so much that [it] will have an impact further south.
“In the central Arctic, where you would imagine there should be snowfall in the whole of the autumn period, we’re actually seeing an earlier transition to rainfall. That will have huge implications. The Arctic having very strong snowfall is really important for everything in that region and also for the global climate, because it reflects a lot of sunlight.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/30/rain-replace-snow-arctic-climate-heats-study
The abstract of the study;
New climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than previously projected
Michelle R. McCrystall, Julienne Stroeve, Mark Serreze, Bruce C. Forbes & James A. Screen
Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 6765 (2021) Cite this article
Abstract
As the Arctic continues to warm faster than the rest of the planet, evidence mounts that the region is experiencing unprecedented environmental change. The hydrological cycle is projected to intensify throughout the twenty-first century, with increased evaporation from expanding open water areas and more precipitation. The latest projections from the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) point to more rapid Arctic warming and sea-ice loss by the year 2100 than in previous projections, and consequently, larger and faster changes in the hydrological cycle. Arctic precipitation (rainfall) increases more rapidly in CMIP6 than in CMIP5 due to greater global warming and poleward moisture transport, greater Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss and increased sensitivity of precipitation to Arctic warming. The transition from a snow- to rain-dominated Arctic in the summer and autumn is projected to occur decades earlier and at a lower level of global warming, potentially under 1.5 °C, with profound climatic, ecosystem and socio-economic impacts.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27031-y
You might think climate modellers are pretty courageous making such a radical prediction, given the long term decline in Holocene temperatures, the history of failed “end of snow” predictions, the long term and statistically significant drop in Antarctic temperatures, and some very snowy recent Northern winters, but there seems to be a prevalent view amongst climate modellers that models are more significant than data.
As John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET once explained, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I can’t wait for the end of end of snow predictions
It will work this way: all the snow will be dumped on our yards and front/back porches, our rooftops, transit routes, highways and grocery stores. Clothing stores will be spared so that people can get inappropriately thin summer clothing to wear during The Big Freeze and Snow Disaster of 2060. Meantime, condos to rent will be built on the (rapidly diminishing) ice shelves of the Arctic circle, but will sink before anyone can rent them, creating some peculiar havens for northern pike, belugas, and walruses. Polar bears will move south.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Prove that it won’t happen. (sarc)
Peak snow!
”2060”…… What can you say anymore? At least with all these papers there will be plenty of stuff to start your fire.
2060 is almost 40 years from now.
By 2060, commercialized fusion power will be, let’s see…I guess about 40 years off in the future!
There you go again, confusing pre-determined model output as ‘research’. *sigh*
Agreed. More than anything else this paper is strong evidence that the models are FUBAR.
“…will replace… …will happen…”
You WILL not graduate if you think like this.
Please allow mw to correct your mistake:
“You WILL not graduate if you DON’T think like this.“
Nigel, all universities have become communist propaganda and indoctrination centers.
Bob,
Somehow we missed the really important quote from Stalin, to whit:
“We will crush you by turning your children into angry morons!”
Got the moron part right.
Even Gavin Schmidt said they run too hot.
A guy that says CO2 causes water vapor and runs from good healthy scientific debate like a scared little baby should never be quoted for any reason, except to ridicule him and to try to end his job and his NASA department entirely. Robert Goddard, if your spirit is up in Heaven and you’re listening, I’m so sorry your name and memory are besmirched by the likes of Gavin Schmidt and James Hanson.
After yet another prediction of climate doom the only word I can bring to mind is ‘Charlatan’.
Models yet again! The polite way to describe this is a daisy chain.
The impolite is “crap”.
…but my models …
More “cleaning supplies” to line bird cages for those pet owners.
Great quote at the end of the article:
“As John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET once explained, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful”.”
Pretty much sums up the foundation of Gorebull Warming research.
Very true … and ironically honest. Observed evidence (data) is what it is. Models project whatever you want it to be. This suits political goals.
Yep, “useful” being the important part of the statement
Well, if “Observational evidence is not very useful” then we might as well just toss it all in the bin! Now that we have access to powerful computers to do our “observations” for us, there is no need to conduct experiments or venture out into dirty, dangerous nature. We can get all of our data directly from the models.
How these people have strayed so far from reality is astonishing. Models and magical thinking all the way.
You don’t understand what is meant by”useful”. You are thinking that this is about science, it’s not.
Pamela,
The great rush to come up with Artificial Intelligence has apparently backfired!
They seem to have discovered Artificial Stupidity instead, and it has completely infected their minds from their continued close proximity to their computers
You don’t need AI if you have NI (Natural Intelligence)
“Artificial Stupidity; AS”. I’m going to have to steal that phrase!
Nor is looking through telescopes if you are studying the cosmos …it seems observation is for people with too much time on their hands. Like philosophers.
Gee, if I used electronic circuit models (SPICE) as defective as those used to model climate I’d be fired because the model results would in no way come close to predicting how the circuit would function. Then again, a SPICE model has a very limited number of well known and well understood elements used to calculate results.
Yet we are supposed to trust models that have so many elements that have unknown effects or unknown upper/lower limits that are either ignored or a ‘Finagle factor’ is used to ‘correct’ the model despite the unknown effects or limits of those elements? We’re supposed to base policies and actions on those same defective models?
Yeah. Right.
If you look closely at the models they all turn into y = mx + b linear equations after four or five years. So trying to use multiple elements and fudge factors to generate a model over a century is a waste of energy. Just pick a slope “m” and go for it! Explain why you picked a specific “m” and let someone try to refute it.
Simple *is* usually best. Using the computer models as they are violates Feynman’s rule about don’t fool yourself. Complexity is usually just a crutch useful only for fooling yourself.
ECS is CliSciFi modelers’ x.
He’s actually correct … the only “power” the warmunists have and wield is with their faked up models … if we only had empirical data to work with, the warmunists would be non-existent.
These guys remind me a great deal of religious frauds who tell you to believe something only because they tell you to believe it … never mind your lying eyes and ears!
And remember none of them are likely to be around by 2060. A gutless prediction based on fantasy and the ridiculous idea that CO2 causes warming …I’m at a point where I am rude to these shallow thinkers, and consider them the lightest of light weight minds . My problem is I say it to their faces …you can imagine they don’t like me much
Wagers should be required on long term predictions about anything non-Biblical, else they have no gravitas.
Well retired on big fat pensions that will most likely have a public purse attached, the good old taxpayer pays again, & not one of them will be held accountable because their claims were based “on the best available science at the time”!!! They have done their research well, knowing that past science has been corrected/revised on future research or discoveries!!! Very clever indeed!!!
If they can’t forecast the next five years, IN DETAIL, then why should I believe they can forecast 40 years in the future accurately?
And, haven’t we been here before?
March 20, 2000:
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.” (https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/global-warming-hysteria-2000-english-children-will-not-know-snow-2010-oops-nevermind).
Spot on, Barbara
For the dedicated Eco-Loon climateer models are the staff of life as they can be controlled and adjusted, unlike the data from the real world which is so intractable and capricious.
Hahahahaha, I love these predictions, we have seen some real doozies over the years and some are highlighted right here on this site to remind us. I have been reading that we are soon going to experience a mini ice age due to the Maunder Minimum that is supposed to be occurring at this time. I’m sure Mr. Homewood is having a good laugh as well. I am a little disappointed that this “report” originated in a Canadian University.
Don’t forget the predictions of Milutin M!
Here we go again, Al Goose Gore weeps for the children that would never see snow, that was in the late 1980s, now those kids are getting into their 40s and they can go skiing anytime they want.
DPP,
Don’t exaggerate; ski areas are rarely open past the 4th of July now!
What is the best month to ski in Australia?
July and August are the coldest months of the year in Australia and offer the best snow conditions in the area’s ski resorts.
I’m reminded of a prediction, circa 2000 or so when low snowfall events were happening in the Canadian Rockies. Not surprisingly a number of predictions of imminent doom for the Canadian ski industry followed with much gnashing of teeth.
Circle back if you will (thanks Jen) to this past year when Sunshine Village and Mount Norquay ski areas, very close to Banff, had their longest ski seasons on record. I believe Lake Louise (Ski Louise) may have also set a record but I’m not confident on that.
On topic, this institution is my alma mater. When I was there only one professor talked about climate at all and that was in relation to agrometeorology. Now, if you check, Dr. McCrystall is the lead of the Climate Change research center on campus. Her job doesn’t exist without exactly this type of output.
“given the long term decline in Holocene temperatures”
Indeed, indeed, “settled science” and all that, except didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse?
Absolutely. We’ve been warming out of the Little Ice age and that’s a very good thing.
My greatest worry is that it might be only a dead cat bounce.
If you analyze stocks the way you seem to analyze the climate, I would say you should avoid investing.
Temperatures initially warm in an interglacial period? Whoulda thunk it.
It’s been going up and down forever. However over the last 7000 years it’s been going generally downward with brief interruptions ever 1000 years or so, the max warmth for each warm period being lower than the last.
The modern warm period is less warm than the medieval warm period.
The medieval warm period is less warm than the roman warm period.
The roman warm period is less warm than the Minoan warm period.
The minoan warm period is less warm than the egyptian warm period.
The egyptial warm period is less warm than just about any time during the holocene optimum which lasted for some 7 to 10 thousand years.
So yes, you are trivially correct that for the last century or so, it has been warming, but so what?
BTW, the modern warm period started about 70 years before there was much increase in CO2 levels, so CO2 could not have been the cause of the modern warm period.
Big Shiny ball in sky!!!
Why do you think they call it Glowball Warming?
Actually, if we’re going to play around with time scales, compare this year’s arctic temperatures with those of the previous few winters. link The arctic has cooled a lot since 2016.
“didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse?”
Yes it did, absolutely correct.
About ~500 BC, leading to the Roman Warm Period which peaked out centuries later.
Then things got really cold and miserable, a time known as the European Dark Ages.
Again, things started warming ~600 AD which became the Medieval Warm period which peaked about ~1200 AD.
Things got cold again, this time known as the Little Ice Age.
That brings up to modern history, the rest you can look up.
TonyL,
Loy-d’oh can’t look up anything to do with history or geology; he already burned those books for their heresies!
1.1c in 200 years, much before human CO2 rose?
Doesn’t seem particularly abrupt?
Science and common sense aren’t Loydo’s or any climate scientist’s strong suit. They just need good prose writing skills and imaginative minds for dreaming up doomsday scenarios to secure research grants.
But most of that in a 50-year span! Which brings up the real issue with terms like abrupt. The more recent the time period, the better the higher the granularity of the data, so people end up comparing short term trends to a long term average. How much did temperature change from 8000 BC to 7950 BC? We really have no idea – the range of calculated temperatures for 8000 BC is by itself 3 degrees C.
Actually no, it didn’t. On Geological time scales, the only rational and scientific way to look at climates, contemporary conditions haven’t yet reached Medieval Warm Period temperatures. It looks unlikely they will.
And the coming ‘switch’, who knows when, might be to glaciation. Don’t throw out your long johns.
I don’t know why you got 30 down votes there. It seems a very reasonable post.
It’s the singer, not the song.
” … except didn’t it just stop and abruptly reverse … ”
Astonishing! Go figure, the climate is not stable, it changes naturally!…
Forgotten about this already, Loydo?
Well there’s a scientifically testable prediction: “rain dominated in the Autumn by 2060 or 2070 if carbon emissions are not cut”. That’s real science there. Don’t know how anyone can expect a more precise testable hypothesis.
Now all we need to do is build a time machine …
Those scientists are dishonest. They used RCP 8,5 scenario to get their results in this research. IPCC itself now rejected this scenario as ‘business as usual’ and describe it as low probability.
‘End-of-century model projected changesThe multi-model ensemble mean of Arctic precipitation increases in all seasons throughout the twenty-first century, especially in autumn, for the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5)/Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5–8.5 (SSP5–8.5) scenarios in CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively (Fig. 2)’.
The diagrams supposedly represent a chain of causation:
The changes in precipitation are supposedly driven by changes in temperature which are in turn supposedly caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Odd that the precipitation trends flat-line until ~2010 – 20 and only then take off, after all the CO2 and temperature trends have been rising since ~1850.
“Odd that the precipitation trends flat-line until ~2010 – 20 and only then take off, after all the CO2 and temperature trends have been rising since ~1850.”
Not odd at all.
The limiting factor in the cooling of summer/autumn air over the Arctic is the presence of sea-ice – air cools by virtue of its melting – when that starts to “tip” to less and less such that open (warming) water predominates then that is when rain will predominate over snow.
Except that by 2040 we should be back to peak ice again
Indeed, they used the RCP 8.5 scenario – so this paper addresses a future fantasy world.
For us in the real world, things are going to turn out rather differently…
They better may play Sim City and save our minds.
Actually if you read the paper you will see they looked at all the scenarios. It’s the news reporting that focuses on RCP 8.5 for dramatic effect
I encourage them to migrate to Point Barrow and wait for rain.
Contribute to the local UHI
The ONLY place where CAGW exists is in failed Climate model outputs, all of which have already been disconfirmed by actual empirical evidence…
Leftists are so hilarious.
SAMURAI,
Actually the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the general circulation models (GCMs) of climate indicate that predicted anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) global warming (AGW) from atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is NOT happening.
The GCMs are constructed to present the changes to warming of the atmosphere which would result from changes to radiative forcing. And all the climate models show more warming in the upper troposphere than near the surface (especially distant from polar regions) as a result of increased radiative forcing from increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Nobody doubts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase radiative forcing, but AGW-proponents say this will cause the atmosphere to respond in a particular way. The pattern of the proposed response is a ‘fingerprint’ for AGW. Therefore, if a ‘fingerprint’ of AGW is absent then any observed warming is not a result of the AGW the climate models project.
This pattern of warming is known as the tropospheric ‘Hot Spot’.
The Hot Spot is fully described in Chapter 9 of the so-called “scientific” WG1 report of IPCC AR4 that can read at and downloaded from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf
The Hot Spot is shown Figure 9.1.
It is on page 675 and is titled,
“Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) wellmixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
(shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)
The Hot Spot is the big red blob that is only in plots (c) for wellmixed greenhouse gases, and (f) for the sum of all forcings.
As can be seen in the Figure the blob is warming of between 2 and 3 times the warming near the surface beneath it.
Furthermore, the plot is of predicted temperature rises “from 1890 to 1999” and the measured temperature rises are for the latter part of the period (since 1958 for the balloon data and since 1969 for the satellite data). Thus, warming measured by balloons and satellites was for when “wellmixed greenhouse gases” were at their highest.
Therefore, if the effect of wellmixed greenhouse gases is as predicted in Figure 9.1 of IPCC WG1 AR4 then the measured warming in the Hot Spot should be MORE THAN 2 to 3 times greater than warming measured near the surface beneath the Hot Spot.
The Hot Spot occurs because of the assumed water vapour feedback (WVF).
Any increase to temperature increases evapouration of water (H2O) from the Earth’s surface. H2O is the major greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 is the greatest of the minor GHGs. The models assume CO2 warms the surface and, thus, increases evapouration and, therefore, the warming effects of water vapour in the air: this is known as the water vapour feedback (WVF). The cold at altitude in the troposphere means there is little H2O up there so any increase to the H2O concentration at altitude has large warming effect.
The Hot Spot is missing so the GCMs provide projections that indicate there is no global warming from wellmixed greenhouse gases.
Richard
In AR6, page 3-23, they talk about this ‘hot spot’, without using the same wording. As far as I can understand, and I am not a climatologist, they admitted almost entirely what John Christy told them since many years for this lack of Tropical Hot Spot: their models failed to represent reality. But that did’n change their dogma that it is co2 which drived temperature since 1950. I look forward Mr Christy’s reply to AR6.
“Climate models show….” Sigh.
This paper is a misrepresentation of the results of model simulations. They actually don’t differ in any substantial way from previous work and its a consequence of treating the mean of a skewed ensemble as representative.
Gavin Schmidt on this at RealClimate:
“the main conclusion that the authors highlight in the press release and which was picked up in the newspaper coverage was the claim that rain would dominate Arctic precipitation ‘decades earlier’ than previously thought. This is based on the last row of figure 8:
This shows the results from the raw ensemble means, and uses the absolute times in the output. Given the excessive warming in some models, which will have an earlier transition than the other CMIP6 or CMIP5 models, this result is mostly due to the inclusion of the high ECS models, not anything fundamental about the processes involved.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/12/making-predictions-with-the-cmip6-ensemble/
Blimey, when Gavin Schmidt thinks a climate model study is rubbish it must be really, really crap – I thought he had a very low bar for this stuff.
Please note that Gavin did not mention that the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 rejected the high-ECS models for use in estimating a modeled ECS range. Its all word games with the practiced CliSciFi liars. That’s why their reports use dense, convoluted and obscure language; they are meant to persuade rather than inform. They represent government lies designed to shape public opinion.
UN IPCC CliSciFi models show what the modelers model into the models in order to get the models’ modeled output. No observation of the (lack of) a Hot Spot is needed.
Are these “scientists ” trying to make dorks of themselves I wonder some times they must be desperate for that govt grant
” Are these “scientists ” trying to make dorks of themselves … ”
They don’t need to try: they are already.
they have been financed mainly from a 118 M$ CA budget, in the order of 1M$ per year during awcwb years. Our Canadian government needs this king of result to implement and support it’s absurb climate policy.
seven
Oh! I was going to dismiss this one – until I saw that it was based on a model!!!. It has to be true then, in some deluded programmers mind at least.
As a canadian who has spent a lot of time in manitoba and all across the far north I say bring it on
Extending the tree line to the Arctic Ocean means unbelievable expansion of forests and arable land.
The long hours of sunlight in Summer have advantages if coupled with warmer temperatures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matanuska-Susitna_Valley
That’s quite a selfish way to think. But in North America it’s not surprising
Meanwhile, sunshine mountain village in banff closed today due to too much snow
Tomorrow too
To dangerous with all that global warming.
Send some down to Colorado. It was 70F in Boulder today.
Careful what you wish for, you’ll get yours soon enough.
While on the subject of canada
Good paper here
https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/research/publications/policy-brief/net-zero-2050-rhetoric-and-realities.php
Pat, please don’t confuse the CliSciFi practitioners, politicians, bureaucrats, activist ideologues, “journalists” and profiteers of all stripes with reality.
I hope the UofM research is correct – the best thing to happen for the Earth would be that it really does definitively warm up and the hydrological cycle gets wetter. The Earth will become greener and wetter, and our grandchildren won’t know what deserts are like (maybe not, but hopefully the deserts will be smaller and pock-marked by thousands of oasis.
Still, some things might stay the same.
“The Arctic having very strong snowfall is really important for everything in that region and also for the global climate, because it reflects a lot of sunlight.”
The lie here is that by late autumn there is hardly any sunlight due to low angles and long nights regardless of the snow cover. Unless the models are predicting changing obliquity by 2100, this late autumn albedo alteration is a non issue.
The Guardian writer is of course a complete moron on this issue, not just employing climate idiot terms like “climate crisis.” He wrote, “…where you would imagine there should be snowfall in the whole of the autumn period, we’re actually seeing an earlier transition to rainfall.”
So is time running backwards at the Guardian??? What was before rainfall?
I’ve often wondered how albedo works in the Polar winters. When the sun is at its greatest altitude mid-May to end ofJuly the Arctic Sea ice is close to maximum. Does it matter if the reflective layer is 2 metres or 2 millimetres thick?
I can’t understand why someone who follows this site doesn’t take the models used to make these predictions and adjust the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the model. I’m sure I am not being clear but I will try to explain. I think the average global temperature is accepted to be approximately 16 centigrade. For any model to be taken seriously it would have to show that before the earth’s CO2 concentration doubled the accepted average temperature was 16C and their models do show that. For them to convince us that CO2 is the control knob they would have to show that all other considerations plugged into the model stay relatively the same except CO2, which has doubled in the model. What I am suggesting is for you to take any model, preferably one that shows the greatest increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2. Let’s say that the chosen model predicts a 5 degree centigrade increase of earth’s temperature with a doubling of CO2. I doubt anyone thinks earth’s actual average temperature would track along this model. You take the model leave all other parameters the same and adjust the value of the CO2 effect, in other words keep lowering the effect of CO2 until you match the current temperature. The idea is that you show what the effect HAS BEEN rather than what it might be.
Let’s say you have four parameters, you could have 10. or 20 but let’s say four. A is always the effect of a doubling of CO2.
A+B+C+D=16 C before man made CO2 additions.
A+B+C+D= 21C after a doubling of CO2.
So you keep lowering the value of A until it approaches the measured temperature, most likely much closer to 16 C.
??????
“A+B+C+D=16 C before man made CO2 additions.”
OK, now…..
“So you keep lowering the value of A until it approaches the measured temperature, most likely much closer to 16 C.”
So you want to double CO2 and have a 0.0 temp increase?
And calculate a new value for A, {call it A1} for a doubling, still at 16 C??
The only way I see this working out given the algebra is:
A = A1 = 0.0.
Not sure what you are trying to do here.
Yes you are right it should have been A minus some value. The point is that the first equation represents how the climate reacts with no anthropogenic CO2. The second equation shows us what happens when man contributes to a doubling of CO2. My point is that someone who knows how should take their model and leave everything in place except the effect a doubling of CO2 has on the climate. So everything in their formula or algorithm would remain the same except we would be reducing the value of A until the equation equals the observed temperature. I understand my example is far too simple for some to appreciate but the idea is so simple I just can’t imagine why someone hasn’t already done it. You use their work, you show their work doesn’t match observations, you lower the value of A (the effect a doubling of CO2 has on earth’s average temperature) until it matches observations. That is the real value of A. A being how much CO2 acts as the control knob for global temperature.
Thanks for responding I was afraid my comment would be such a mish mash that no one would even notice.