From Dr. Roy Spencer:
If we assume ALL *observed* warming of the deep oceans and land since 1970 has been due to humans, we get an effective climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.9 deg. C. This is considerably lower than the official *theoretical* model-based IPCC range of 2.5 to 4.0 deg. C.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/our-new-climate-sensitivity-paper-has-been-published/
Via a Phys.org article:
Spencer and Christy’s climate model, based upon objective measured data, found carbon dioxide does not have as big of an effect of warming of the atmosphere when compared with other climate models.
“For over 30 years, dozens of highly sophisticated computerized climate models based upon theory have been unable to agree on an answer. That’s why we developed our own one-dimensional climate model to provide an answer,” says. Dr. Spencer.
…
When compared to other current climate models, the research results from Spencer and Christy’s one-dimensional climate model approached the bottom end of the range, 1.9° Celsius. The lower UAH value indicates that the climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is much less that that based on other climate models.
The paper, published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology:
Effective climate sensitivity distributions from a 1D model of global ocean and land temperature trends, 1970–2021
Abstract:
Current theoretically based Earth system models (ESMs) produce Effective Climate Sensitivities (EffCS) that range over a factor of three, with 80% of those models producing stronger global warming trends for 1970–2021 than do observations. To make a more observationally based estimate of EffCS, a 1D time-dependent forcing-feedback model of temperature departures from energy equilibrium is used to match measured ranges of global-average surface and sub-surface land and ocean temperature trends during 1970–2021. In response to two different radiative forcing scenarios, a full range of three model free parameters are evaluated to produce fits to a range of observed surface temperature trends (± 2σ) from four different land datasets and three ocean datasets, as well as deep-ocean temperature trends and borehole-based trend retrievals over land. Land-derived EffCS are larger than over the ocean, and EffCS is lower using the newer Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP245, 1.86 °C global EffCS, ± 34% range 1.48–2.15 °C) than the older Representative Concentration Pathway forcing (RCP6, 2.49 °C global average EffCS, ± 34% range 2.04–2.87 °C). The strongest dependence of the EffCS results is on the assumed radiative forcing dataset, underscoring the role of radiative forcing uncertainty in determining the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations from observations alone. The results are consistent with previous observation-based studies that concluded EffCS during the observational period is on the low end of the range produced by current ESMs.
Full paper with open access is here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-023-04634-7
For a description of climate sensitivity, see Everything Climate
Salute!
Big deal.
The alarmists will dismiss this along with many studies and such that minimize the horror of the impending extinction of the human race, plus a few birds and sea turtles, and we will all fry to death at a temperature that allowed humans and millions of species to thrive and prosper for a few million years…..
Meanwhile, as the alarmists take away your gas and oil and propane and……you better learn how to make a fire if you live above about 15 degrees north
Gums sends..
The alarmist will still maintain climate is a problem long after we are all living in caves, chasing our food across fields with bows, as our wimmen folk carry buckets of parasite infected water on their heads and our kids run around shoeless, foraging for firewood, the smoke from which will see us all consigned to a life expectancy of 35 years.
Yes folks, it’s all a voodoo cult and has been going on since mankind worshipped Sun Gods.
What idiot said education would liberate us all?
Is it morally justifiable to fix the Climate forever into the state it was in when you were a child?
Well, there’s ‘education’.
And then there’s “igitkashun”.
There’s nothing wrong with education as long as it involves facts.
Flintstones! Meet the Flintstones. They’re the fossil-fuel-less family!…
Education USED TO teach students HOW to think! “Modern” educators teach WHAT to think! That is why heresies against “The Science” can NOT be allowed! You can’t have the kiddies start to question the current narrative and leave the state of fear they are ensconced in! Without a continuing fright they are much too hard to control!
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that adding the latest model electronic devices into the mix has brought about a marked increase in mental problems and disorders! Just like the rise in diabetes and obesity following the US Government recommendation of a low-fat diet, there can’t be ANY causal relationship!
People still need fire to cook (at least some kinds of) food wherever they’re at.
Here it was said to be 1.1 C. Now in this post it is said to be 1.9 C. Isn’t that higher?
the big word is “IF”
IF all the Ocean warming is assumed to be human derived then the sensitivity is 1,9 C per doubling.
It sets an upper bound to the sensitivity.
Most of the alarmist nonsense follows the logic
IF nonsense scenario RCP8.5 is true, then start screaming.
Good comment! That made me laugh! 🙂
Which is higher than their previous estimate.
It is the mid point estimate.
I don’t know if you really are this clueless, or if you are eager to make a fool of yourself.
The paper clearly states that the comparison is between their calculations and the IPCC claims.
So you found somebody who has a lower estimate. So freaking what. I’ve been saying that the ECS is likely to be between 0.3 and 0.7 for years. And I’m sticking with that estimate.
Your attempt to distract with irrelevancies is noted, and dutifully ignored.
1.9 C is still the mid point. I didn’t go looking for anybody who had a lower estimate. That lower estimate is from Christy and only 6 years ago. His new estimate is higher; not lower.
Nice attempt to deflect, not up to Stokesian standards, but still not bad for an amateur.
The table and the paper make it quite clear that they are comparing their results to the IPCC model runs.
Go easy, big fella. There have been a lot of cleanup requests in the store this week.
I know. I read the paper. 1.9 is still higher than their previous estimate.
And it’s still utterly irrelevant. The point is to demonstrate how utterly unreliable the IPCC is.
I’ll you pick the fight regarding relevance with Spencer and Christy alone.
“…lower than the official *theoretical* model-based IPCC range of 2.5 to 4.0 deg. C.”
If A < B and C < B then it does not follow that A < C.
A=5
B=10
C=2
5<10
2<10;
5 is not less than 2.
You missed, try again. (7th grade was a long time ago)
(Ok, who gave the '+' ?)
dk,
Sorry… I was just skimming thru and thought bdgwx was expanding on its argument and saying A<C.
A = 1.1, B = 1.9. B > A.
Miss the point much?
“A = 1.1, B = 1.9. B > A.”
All physically meaningless.
A=1.9, B=|2.4~4.0|, C=1.1. A is an estimate of upper bound. B is IPCC range, higher than A. C is an earlier estimate of a precise value. A and C are not incompatible. B is an imprecise range of what RCS should be based on achieving a desired result in a predicted scenario, and not based on measurements of nature. A and C need not be equal, based on their development and the assumptions made to derive them. Both A and C are lower than B, but asking why A and B are not equal demonstrates a lack of understanding of all three.
No, it does not follow. It’s possible, but equally possible that it could be incorrect
Yes it is!!!! Oh my we’re all doomed by the global temps going up by less than 2°C once the CO2 reaches 560ppm, in approximately 60-odd years.
I don’t know how my children will bear their retirement with temperatures ranging from -16 to 35°C when currently they are aclimatized to the much more livable -20 to 35°C range. Think of the children!!
Despite the number of downvotes, Badgewax is correct. In fact Spencer and Christy’s revisit at 1.9 is much closer to the 2.3 IPCC number that that they pooh-poohed in the old paper. Honest men doing honest calcs telling us what they honestly calculated….
The new 1D model estimate is certainly in the ballpark. Observational EBM estimates range from about 1.65-1.7. Guy Callendar’s 1935 curve yields 1.68. Using Lindzen’s Bode feedback curve (zero feedbacks =1.2) with what is known about cloud and water vapor feedbacks yields about 1.8 (Bode 1.25= IPCC ECS 3=>Bode 0.65-0.15 (zero cloud feedback)-0.25 (half water vapor feedback). (Detailed method posted previously in several comments.) The Russian INM CM5 (no tropical troposphere hotspot) produces 1.8. INM CM4-9 produces 1.9.
Judith Curry and Nic Lewis, for the period 2007-2016, derived 1.66 (1.35 – 2.15 @ 1 σ)
https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/24/impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
All of these estimates are centered less than 2 and are under IPCC AR6 by a good margin.
Just downloaded paper. I want to understand if/how downwelling IR from co2 is in the model.
I know the downwelling IR estimation from modtran is not correct. In the end, is a combined macro/quantum understanding of co2 downwelling of IR needed? The usual radiative equilibrium 1/2 up 1/2 down spin is not close to being correct. If this component is important in Climate models(ignoring simple media style spin) I would like to see a plot of the percentage of excited co2 quantum states from the ground to the tropopause.
Ask if reason for wanting this is not obvious.
Good question.. I suspect the probability of scattering would be mainly in the continued direction.
Doesn’t S-B state that the net radiative transfer is a function of temperature difference?
As I read thru paper it does not look like downwelling ir from co2 is included in model. As far as temp difference. Co2 goes thru a thermalization process. (Excitation/deexcitation) All energy absorbed from ir is quickly thermaized with a small percentage being reexcited and left in energized state. For the excited states the emission is set by the quantum emission time constants. Co2 is dominated by the spontanious emission time constant vs the stimulated. The temperature, density and thermalization rates set the co2 emission rate.
But it looks like their is not included in this model.
I have been searching and have not found the percentage of co2 excited states as a function of altitude yet. (Temperatue, pressure, and density in mixed gas)
Any downward radiation from CO2 is probably going to encounter a water molecule long before it gets to the surface. The big question then becomes what does the water molecule do? Many of the excited CO2 molecules will never radiate, their energy will be transferred kinetically to other molecules, including water. Then what does the water molecule do?
It’s a big question in my mind whether any of the CO2 downward radiation will ever reach the surface. The only thing it will warm is probably the atmosphere – with it’s large concentration of water vapor.
What impact does the atmosphere warming have on the surface? I’ve not seen that discussed anywhere. Yet it *is* what UAH measures.
Does CO2 act like a blanket on the surface and prevent the earth from radiating away heat? Or is CO2 a blanket on the atmosphere?
It doesn’t ‘prevent’, it merely ‘delays’.
I agree. I would only add that as the daytime temperature at sunset goes up, so does the amount of heat radiation from the earth. The exponential decay slope gets larger as the initial temperature goes up. So more heat gets radiated away at the start of the decay than it would at a lower initial temperature.
Most of the “pictures” I’ve seen of radiation budget examples seem to use average values of “something”. Averages are not really good at describing what happens in a time dependent function. The true measure would be an integral of the exponential decay, not its average value.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning, but it sounds like you imagine that photons have information about the state of some remote body which is possibly billions of light-years distant and will preferentially emit toward the coldest body ‘in sight’, thus emitting mostly up.
The amount of energy radiated is only determined by the temperature of the emitter and is random in all directions.
Where there may be confusion is that the NET transfer depends on all the sources and targets each acting independently. Imagine a city connected to several other cities and regions by highways extending radially out. The highways have both inbound and outbound lanes. Net traffic leaving the city depends on the cars leaving and the cars coming in.
The cars leaving aren’t staying or going based on knowledge of how many cars are leaving the remote site. They are leaving for their own reasons as are the cars traveling toward the city.
If more cars are leaving than entering then the NET transfer is away from the city. There could be very heavy traffic in one direction and light traffic in the other direction or there could be similar traffic in both directions. If there’s a mismatch then there’s a net flow. If perfectly balanced, then despite perhaps heavy traffic in both directions, there may be no net flow.
Cool objects radiate in all directions just as hot objects do. But the amount is proportional the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the object. So the radiation ‘traffic’ from the cold place is a trickle compared with the ‘traffic’ from the hot place. It’s not that the cold object ‘understands’ that it is colder so it doesn’t emit while the hot object ‘knows’ that it is hotter so it emits, leading to a unidirectional flow of heat.
The downwelling IR from the cold atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling from the much warmer surface. If there were no atmosphere, then the inbound radiation would only be what comes from the very frigid 3K deep space.
“The amount of energy radiated is only determined by the temperature of the emitter and is random in all directions.”
Need to be careful here. IR radiation is an electro-magnetic wave. It propagates equally in all directions from a point source and the amount of energy it carries at any point on the wave front follows the inverse square law. The energy at any point on the wave front can be spoken of in terms of photons, a packet of energy if you will. The further you get from the point source the fewer packets of energy you will find at any point on the wave front.
It’s not clear that climate science recognizes the inverse square law in its radiation budget, at least to me.
Tim,
When it comes to downwelling IR, there isn’t one source but as many sources as there are molecules in the atmosphere, right? Those sources are everywhere from right at the surface to the very top of the atmosphere, though overwhelmingly in the lower troposphere. And those sources are in motion too (convection, advection…)
I imagine a giant pinball machine with photons emitted, absorbed, re-emitted until finally either reaching the surface or escaping to space. If each emission is random, I’d expect half to have a positive z-axis component and half negative. The flux in W/m2 would have to be lower at top of atmosphere than at the surface due to inverse square law, but I’m not seeing the relevance to that.
The comment I was reacting to implied that photons would re-emit preferentially in the same direction as they were absorbed, which would imply little to no ‘back-radiation’.
I react to those kind of claims because I think skeptics are discredited by those who deny the greenhouse effect. The GHE is life-giving and in no way a danger given the empirically observed climate sensitivity. We need to embrace accurate science and emphasize that there is No CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
The only thing I would add to your example is that all the cars going both ways originate from the center. It is impossible for new cars to enter the system. At best then, equal number of cars would end up going and coming. Since we know from looking at actual temperatures throughout the day the temperature increases and falls based on the sun. So the outlying cities can only delay cooling for a short time. Since the mass of the atmosphere is small compared to the surface, any delay won’t last long.
Your analogy shows why averages simply can not derive what occurs within the time period of the average. It also needs roundabouts for cars to return to the outlying cities to account for water and one for reflections of the sun’s energy.
EM waves are not bullets, they don’t have a “random direction”. They don’t have a “direction”, either up or down. Plank radiation *is* an EM wave. Therefore there is just as much energy radiated up as down. Planck’s Law gives you a spectral *density* for the radiation, a per unit area, per unit solid angle, etc. The CO2 molecule doesn’t emit a photon bullet in a specific direction.
And the inverse square law plays a big roll in how much energy the EM wave will have at any point at a distance. As the sphere representing the EM wave expands, the initial total energy emitted must cover a larger and larger area, meaning that the energy per unit area goes down. That surface area increases as r^2 so the the energy at any point goes down by 1/r^2. If the distance doubles (x2) then the energy at a point on the larger sphere goes down by a factor of 4.
When that wave encounters an object, that object (say a water molecule) can absorb energy in packets known as “photons”. The further that object is away from the originating point the fewer “energy packets” of a specific size the EM wave has available. At some point in the distance the EM wave won’t have enough energy at any single point to provide the required energy packet to a water molecule that can “excite” it.
If the atmosphere CO2 and H2O is stratified, say a higher percentage of total CO2 is close to the surface while a higher percentage of H2O is higher in the atmosphere then the energy received at a measuring point (a satellite) will see a higher percentage of the total radiation being contributed by H2O than by CO2, just because of the distances involved and the inverse square law. Since the emission spectra of H2O and CO2 overlap, the detector isn’t going to know what part of the radiation is from H2O and which part is from CO2.
To me, it’s just one more measurement uncertainty to add to all the other measurement uncertainties associated with climate science and its assumption of how everything works. It’s simply not obvious to me from the climate science literature that climate science even recognizes the inverse square law, let alone include it and its impacts in their climate models.
ROFL!! A downvote with absolutely nothing to say why. Not a single comment pointing out where anything I posted was incorrect.
This just about says it all when it comes to climate science – it’s a religion and not a science discipline!
All the model uses is a net feedback parameter, which is how much additional Vis+IR is emitted to space as the climate system warms. That parameter is adjusted until the model matches the observations. There are no details about how much IR is downwelling from the atmosphere to the surface, etc., just the top-of-atmosphere net flux. It’s an energy budget exercise of the global land and the global ocean systems.
Thank you for reply. While I have your attention could you post a mailing address to send checks too support your site.
Simplistic TOA imbalances that assume CO2 is responsible for all of the flux is the fundamental flaw in models.
This sounds like the beginning of a nice analog computer setup that I learned in EE many years ago.
_______________________________________________
If you assume everything from Climate Science is run through a political filter…
The purpose of that assumption is not to exaggerate the effect but to try to set an upper bound. It’s unlikely that natural factors have ceased to affect climate. If some of the observed warming is due to natural variability, then the climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 is even less than the harmless (beneficial!) 1.9° rise.
Separate observation. It doesn’t matter what the effective ECS actually is, so long as it is at or under 2. The transient climate response (TCR) (1% CO2 increase per year, doubling after ~70 years) is usually about 70% of its corresponding ECS. So to near the end of this century, <2*0.7 = <1.4. Even IF the warmunists were right (they aren’t) that 1.5C is the climate tipping point, it still won’t be reached.
If there were a climate tipping point for greenhouse gases, the planet would have long ago become a hot-house earth.
It’s more logical to assume that the CO2 GHE was already hovering around saturation before human emissions started. A little CO2 would cause a little warming, which would cause CO2 to off-gas from the oceans, which would cause a little warming, which would cause more CO2 of off-gas, etc. The system naturally tends towards a saturate greenhouse effect for CO2, H2O, methane etc.
The only tipping points, short of a dying sun, are Milankovitch cycles, which cause what to us and many other lifeforms would be disastrous cooling. Seem likely that all the CO2 man could possibly produce would not be enough to overcome Milankovitch’s demon.
‘The only tipping points, short of a dying sun, are Milankovitch cycles, which cause what to us and many other lifeforms would be disastrous cooling. ‘
Or plate techtonics – see ToldYouSo, below.
There is no such thing as a runaway greenhouse effect. Even on Venus. Sure, it’s exceedingly hot. But it’s stable. And it has over 200,000 times as much CO2 as Earth’s atmosphere.
The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2 and it is quite cold there.
Yes. Mars has 95% CO2, 5% trace gases and a thin atmosphere. Venus has 96% CO2, 4% different gases (including sulphur dioxide) and a very thick atmosphere which results in it getting hotter than Mercury, so distance from the Sun isn’t a factor any more than the percentage of CO2. It’s a bit of a conundrum, isn’t it?
Atmospheric depth/mass seems to be the big decider 😉
Since solar irradiance varies as 1/distance^2, Venus on average receives 1.9 times more solar W/m^2 than does Earth whereas Mars on average receives only 43% of the solar W/m^2 that Earth does. That’s a 4.4:1 difference for Venus:Mars.
While that IS a significant difference, a far more important factor is that— unlike the situation on Mars with its relatively thin CO2 atmosphere—the very thick CO2 atmosphere of Venus greatly restricts the ability of the surface and even lower portions of the atmosphere itself to radiate away energy at the associated IR wavelengths (Venus’s surface temperature of ~475 C has peak blackbody radiation at 3.9 microns). With such low effective global emissivity (due to the atmosphere) the temperatures of these regions must necessarily increase to balance the planetary power total outflow to its total income so as to attain the near-equilibrium conditions that we observe.
I don’t see this as being a conundrum, but YMMV.
Distance from the sun (or more accurately insolation due to proximity) is certainly a ‘factor’ just as GHG concentration is a factor. It’s just that different combinations of factors can yield different results.
A naked man floating in 15°C water too long will die. A suitably-dressed man may work and sleep in a field at -15°C for an indefinite period of time. It’s not a conundrum.
It’s much closer to the sun- no wonder it’s hot. For some reason, that fact never gets mentioned- only the CO2 level.
Another fun fact.
1. A day on Venus is longer than a yearIt takes Venus longer to rotate once on its axis than to complete one orbit of the Sun. That’s 243 Earth days to rotate once – the longest rotation of any planet in the Solar System – and only 224.7 Earth days to complete an orbit of the Sun.
So the sun continually heats 1/2 the CO2 atmosphere for half the year and the gas spreads the heat around.
Ummmm . . . didn’t you mean to say that the Sun continually heats 1/2 the CO2 atmosphere for the full (Venusian) year?
The point is the slow Venus spin rate and no moon. In this configuration Venus could never acquire an ocean. No ocean, no way to absorb gases from atmosphere. If the earth did not have a moon and had a slow spin rate. The earth would look like venus.
The moon slowed the Earth’s rotation.
The Earth acquired an ocean because we were further from the sun and because of that the atmosphere cooled.
The inital collision that formed the moon sped up the earth’s rotation and it has been slowing since and will continue to do so as the moon moves away from earth. When the spin drops enough game over for life as we know it on earth. Venus or earth with a low spin rate could not acquire an ocean. Without an ocean, no way to pull co2 from atmosphere.
There are animations of the earth spin rate over time on the web in various places. If I can find link quickly I will be back to post
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FwFabEwamrE
Here is one of several supported animations of earth’s histoy
Got any factual reference to support that assertion?
There is science-based speculation that Earth may have had a rotation rate as high as 1 rev/2.5 hours* just prior to the impact of another solar system body that seems certain to have been the formative origin of Earth’s Moon. However, there is really no way of scientifically establishing if the impact was pro-grade with respect to Earth’s rotation vector or retro-grade with respect to that vector.
My understanding is that we don’t have a way to know if the Moon-forming collision actually sped-up or slowed down Earth’s pre-impact rotation rate. We simply cannot argue the issue based on conservation of momentum for today’s Earth-Moon system since we have no idea of the amount of angular momentum that may have escaped the Earth-Moon gravity well in the short interval during and after that collision.
*Ref: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22393-fast-spinning-earth-settles-mystery-of-moons-make-up/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ObI18hOdAZQ
Was this Harvard lecture.
The animation showing the earth’s evolution spin rate seems right on
Thank you the reference link.
However,
1) at the 4m27s point into the video: ” . . . is what happens (sic) when the Moon was made, and this is still an open question in planetary science.”
2) at the 6m06s point into the video: “. . . and this giant impact phase is thought of as stochastic . . .” (with transition to a presentation slide at 6m22s showing, in particular, the retrograde spin rotation of Venus compared to the prograde spin rotation of some other planets and the outer solar system planetoid Humana) followed by this pertinent remark at 7m17s point: “Venus, our sister planet, rotates the wrong way . . . and that is possibly the result of an impact that sets (sic) its spin direction compared to Earth . . .”
3) Nowhere in the referenced video (especially with the verbal explanations and presentation slides of the Earth-Moon formation process beginning at 12m25s into the video) is there justification for the Moon-originating impact being prograde (thereby “spinning up” Earth’s rotation rate at time of impact) or retrograde (thereby “spinning down” Earth’s rotation rate) with respect to Earth’s pre-impact angular momentum vector. This includes the nice colorful computer simulations of the event . . . this critical distinction is completely overlooked . . . resulting in GIGO computer modeling.
4) The colorful computer simulation of the Moon’s formation starting at the 16m17s point into the subject video show a prograde impact without any justification for that assumption. The colorful computer simulation of the Moon’s formation starting at the 28m36s point into the subject video show a retrograde impact without any justification for that assumption. Hmmm . . . which to choose from?
Bottom line: having no idea (and no way to realistically estimate) the total angular momentum vector of a Earth “impactor” with respect to the pre-impact angular momentum vector of Earth itself, there is no scientific basis to claim that Earth’s rotation rate “sped up” during the Moon’s formation process. The referenced video is no help in this regard.
Thanks for comments I will go thru. This is all getting away from basic point of forming oceans. I have seen nothing to change my mind that the earth spin rate evolution demonstration is wrong. A planet can not develope an ocean with anything close to a spin synchronous orbit similar to venus.
There is one subject I would like to here your comment on. One theory I tucked away along time ago.
Venus in a unstable spin synchronous orbit, flipped to a more stable retrograde configuration. Probability of this happening??
“A planet can not develope an ocean with anything close to a spin synchronous orbit similar to venus.”
Well, counter-examples to that assertion are found with Saturn’s moon Enceladus and Jupiter’s moon Europa. Both appear to have salty, liquid oceans covered with thick layers of ice at the surface.
— Ref: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/et-oceans.html
Encelandus is tidally-locked in orbit around Saturn, with its rotational period (32.9 hours) being equal to its orbital period (32.9 hours).
Similarly, Europa is tidally locked in orbit around Jupiter, with its rotational period (3.5 Earth days) being equal to its orbital period (3.5 Earth days).
Probability equal to zero unless there was a massive (i.e., size of Venus or larger) body that passed close to Venus in the distant past and transferred the improbably large amount of angular momentum that would be needed to “flip” the vector sign of the planet’s rotation (that is, convert it from prograde to the retrograde motion we see today). Absent an outside torque (say, from a passing body) angular momentum is conserved and a planet simply cannot flip itself.
The evidence that something like a planet-size body passing close to Venus never happened is found in the fact that the plane of the orbit of Venus around the Sun lies very close to the plane of the ecliptic (inclination is only about 3 degrees) AND the orbit of Venus has the lowest eccentricity (i.e., is the most circular) of all planets in the Solar System . . . neither of these parameters are consistent with a postulated close encounter with a passing body wherein a large exchange of angular momentum occurred.
If the impactor had struck the Earth in a retrograde position, the debris from the collision would have thrown into a retrograde orbit.
All of the planets have pro-grade rotation. Basic theory of orbital mechanics pretty much demands that this be the case.
So it is very, very, likely that prior to the Moon forming collision, the Earth had a pro-grade rotation.
Given that the moon is orbiting in the same direction that the Earth rotates, the impactor object had to have hit the earth a glancing blow, on the side that would result in the Earth’s rotation speeding up. Had it hit on the other side of the Earth, the Moon would have settled into a retro-grade orbit.
It appears that you are confusing a planet’s direction of revolution around the Sun from the direction of its rotation about its spin axis.
All planets revolve around the Sun with the same direction of angular motion, which is the same direction in which the Sun rotates in the ecliptic plane. However, Venus and Uranus rotate in a direction opposite to that of their orbital motion, commonly referred to as retrograde motion.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_motion
As for your other assertion, no . . . if the impactor that caused formation of Earth’s Moon transferred a relatively small amount of total angular momentum to Earth during the collision, the formed Moon would still revolve prograde w.r.t. Earth’s rotation, even if the impact was on the retrograde side of Earth. It’s solely a matter of conservation of angular momentum of the impactor/Earth/Moon-forming-gravitational bound-debris-field system . . . and, again, there is no means to establish the respective angular momentum vector of the impactor as it hit Earth nor of the debris field that retained/obtained escape velocity from the Earth-Moon gravitational well.
There is no evidence that the Earth’s spin was ever as slow as Venus’s. There is no way short of being hit by another Mars sized object that the Earth’s rate of spin will EVER get as slow as Venus’s. Regardless, the rate of spin is irrelevant.
See below, here is a better animation
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1OreyX0-fw
The sun heats half the atmosphere at any given time for all the planets in this solar system.
Since there is very little difference in temperature between Venus’s day side and night side, it can’t be the slow rotation that is causing Venus to be so hot.
Atmospheric mass allows retention of surface energy, up until it doesn’t…
… then convection occurs.
Now, what gives it that ability. 😉
It is science fiction (perhaps even fantasy) to assert that Earth might have a global temperature-triggered climate “tipping point” anywhere lower than 7 C above today’s average global temperature.
A global tipping point with 1.5–3.0 C rise? . . . pfffttpth!
“Another hothouse period was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55-56 million years ago. Though not quite as hot as the Cretaceous hothouse, the PETM brought rapidly rising temperatures. During much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle.
“During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.”
— ref: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
(my bold emphasis added)
Earth had no problem with recovering naturally—that is, without climate “tipping”—from such a huge increase in temperature and associated huge increase in atmospheric CO2 level.
The tipping point occurred 12000 years ago.
WHAT tipping point? Try a re-read.
He’s pulling your leg – glaciation gave way to the holocene interglacial 11,700 odd years ago – that’s what he’s referencing.
Yep, a very sudden and very large warming…
.. all because the Flintstones were driving SUVs. 🙂
I think that pterodactyl flatulence must have been a factor as well! That was before unicorns I believe.
Well, in that case, Earth has had multiple such tripping points . . . at an average frequency of about one every 100,000 years for the last million years, and prior to that at an frequency of about one every 30,000 years for some millions of years (ref: Earth’s paleoclimatology history of quasi-periodic glacial/interglacial, aka stadial/interstadial, cycles).
So—not pulling anyone’s leg— there’s absolutely nothing to fear about yet another one of those “tipping” points if that’s all we’re talking about.
All I meant was that you were pulling his leg by labelling it a ‘tipping point’ as a tongue-in-cheek reference to one of the climate enthusiasts’ sacred cows!
On the contrary, the next tipping point that leads to rapid glaciation will annihilate human civilization. Low on fossil fuels, and with fusion still just 5-50 years from commercialization, our descendants in AD 5023 or whenever will most likely die off in droves from starvation, warfare, and disease.
During the last glacial maximum (LGM) about 20-25kya, total global population of H. sapiens was likely in the low tens of thousands and may have been as low as 1,000 individuals. They could have fit into a modern sports stadium. Modern technology would likely assure a bigger population than during the LGM, but the 10-12 billion we are projected to level off at is certainly going to be unsustainable in the next glacial maximum.
“On the contrary, the next tipping point that leads to rapid glaciation will annihilate human civilization.”
If past performance is any prediction of future results, humanity has about 22,000*-12,000 = 8,000 years before we experience the next inflection point leading to a glacial period.
*For the most recent eight glacial/interglacial cycles, the interglacial interval (period of warmth between average of peak low and peak high temperatures) has been about 22% of the the average total cycle period of 100,000 years. We entered the current interglacial, warm period (aka the Holocene) about 12,000 years ago.
Anyone that thinks that human civilization cannot use science and technology developed over the next 8,000 years to prevent annihilation of the human species from planetary glaciation is . . . well . . . sadly mistaken.
Ooops . . . my bad math: 22,000-12,000 is obviously 10,000 years, not 8,000 years.
Not enough coffee, I guess. 🙂
Will the species survive in some form? Almost certainly. What I said was that civilization is likely to be annihilated by the next glaciation. 10-12 billion people aren’t going to be fed and housed if the greater part of the arable land is lost to ice and snow. Sure a few hundred million people can live at 1600s standards with organic farming and animal labor with today’s arable land. But 1600s standards and a 90% drop in population represents the effective annihilation of our civilization.
History shows that resource shortages do not typically result in equitable peaceful sharing. They lead to wars. Wars that with today’s weapons could easily wipe out most of the population and return the survivors to a neolithic lifestyle.
Never mind the next glacial maximum, what about the depletion of cost-effective fossil fuels?
Never mind the depletion of fossil fuels. Resource shortages don’t only come from actual depletion. Insane government policies suffice. Look around you. Civilization is already on life support.
In something like 10,000 years into the future, what we would call magic today will be the equivalent of child’s play to whatever the human species has evolved into as a civilized species.
Human civilization will not be annihilated . . . it’s had too much of a head and is on an exponentially increasing growth rate compared to nature’s timeline.
Barring a relatively near-term planet-killer asteroid or comet impact, that is :-))
And the alarmists will probably try to tell us that it was humans creating fixed settlements, and starting to grow crops and domesticate animals, about 500 years before that, that caused the “runaway” warming! 🙂
They’ve already tried – they blame all agriculture, from the earliest neolithic farmer to today, for climate change as a ‘change in land use’. They’re just a bunch of misanthropes trying to get rid of any human impact on the garden of eden.
That’s “inflection point” and it was 11,873 years ago on a Thursday. What kind of climate scientist would use such vague numbers? 😉
Exactly! One should not mistake a rather-commonly-occurring inflection point for a “tipping point”.
When I read the words “tipping point,” I envision the future final state of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, along with the exclamation, “Timber!” That is, used properly, “tipping point” should refer to an action from which the system cannot recover. As is often the case with climastrologists, the use of scary terms like “ocean acidification,” “global boiling,” and “tipping point” are not intended to inform, but rather, to stampede the uninformed.
There are two quasi-stable climate states—stadial and interstadial for the past couple million years. The climate virtually jumps between the two states. It’s not a pattern like a sine wave, more like a square wave. Its periodicity varies because there are multiple factors which can contribute or interfere, but in the end, insolation, ocean currents, and precipitation patterns reach a point where there is a rapid change to a new quasi-stable state.
That’s a tipping point.
It has basically nothing to do with CO2 or human activity and there is absolutely nothing we’re ever going to be able to do to cause it or to stop it.
Well, like beauty, is guess the view of climate states and their “quasi-stability” rests in the eye of the beholder.
I, for one, looking at the pattern of various paleoclimate proxies representing such over the last 650,000 years (see attached graph, with x-axis being in units of kY) see something more representative of a somewhat periodic sawtooth waveform, but definitely nothing resembling a square wave.
From the paper:
This is an odd phrasing. Aren’t there more than 100 models in CMIP6? Why is this subset of 36 being used for comparison?
Go read the paper and find out.
I did. They don’t explain this anywhere in the paper. Or maybe they did and I missed, and you, having read the paper so thoroughly, can point it out to me.
Oh, and their abstract is flagrantly wrong:
That should say, “36 current theoretically based Earth system models…”
AJ, not sure you are correct.The most authoritative source on CMIP6 says that by ye 2022, there were 134 models from 53 modeling groups. Makes sense, since I know INM submitted two: CM4v9 and CM5. They have the next lowest and lowest ECS in CMIP6, respectively. CM4v9 has almost no tropical troposphere hotspot, while CM5 has none, even a slight cooling. INM published a paper on this, its significance, and what they did to parameterize it. (They used actual ARGO data to parameterize ocean rainfall!)
Wow!, 134 cliamate models! Think of all the money being made producing all those models. A job creation/career extending program!
The IPCC should take the one model that resembles reality the most (the Russian model) and toss out the rest. Why keep models that distort reality?
That was a rhetorical question.
The existence of 134 models hardly comports with “settled science”.
So, you read the Abstract, Congratulations!!! but you should have continued to read since soon afterwards ALL 36 models by name are explained against the observations in figure ONE.
No, you didn’t since it tells us the number of 36 specific names models very early in the paper you pretended to read.
Hint: there are 36 models by name in it.
‘Aren’t there more than 100 models in CMIP6? Why is this subset of 36 being used for comparison?’
Assuming ‘100’ is about the correct number, which one of them is ‘correct’ and can we save the taxpayers a ton of money by decommissioning, say, 80 or 90 of the worst ones?
Dear world, we have concocted these 100 medicines of which at most one is safe so we mixed them all together. Now open wide…
Been through something similar to that procedure over the last few years 😉
At least 99 of them are wrong, and we don’t which 99. !
Given the spread of the ensemble when compared to what the atmosphere has actually done, I would say there is a pretty good chance that all 100 are wrong.
“absolutely certain”.. would be the correct “climate” terminology. ! 🙂
“Perfection is the enemy of ‘good enough for government work.'”
Is it safe to assume that any one of them is ‘correct”?
Logically, there can only be one “best” model. We should be trying to identify that (Russian model?), and determine why it gives the best result compared to reality, and how it differs from all the inferior models.
There are 36 climate models catalogued at the KNMI Climate Explorer website which are commonly used as the definitive CMIP6 models. However many of the models have more than one entry for a slightly different model run – this does not mean that they are different models but for some purposes, the multiple runs are included in the composites. Hope this helps.
It does not help in the slightest to explain why Christy and Spencer have not made this clear in their article or abstract.
Picky, picky, picky! I knew it, most climate scientists knew it, the entire IPCC know it and many people here know it. Do you really need every tiny little term explained and spoonfed to your limited understanding? Look it up if you don’t know, try not to embarrass yourself in public again.
Just to be clear, you’re annoyed that I think peer reviewed scientific publications should be explicit and clear in their meaning? The abstract states that 80% of ESMs show more warming than observations, then in the paper it switches to “80% of 36 ESMs” and the reason for choosing these 36 ESMs is not because they are the only models in the CMIP6 experiments, it is because they happen to be available via the KNMI repository. And nowhere in the paper is this explained.
Not annoyed, just highly amused that you weren’t aware of this common knowledge. The multiple runs of the 36 models, using different IPCC scenarios, form the very basis of the AGW ideology. I would have assumed that you would be aware of this basic fact. I apologise for overestimating the depth of your understanding.
It’s not a basic fact as far as I can tell, it only seems to be the case that the 36 ESMs archived in the KNMI explorer are used in CMIP6 multi-model ensembles. That still doesn’t explain why Spencer and Christy do not explain their reasoning in the paper, nor why they incorrectly claim that 80% of ESMs show less warming than observations.
But since you’re choosing to be glib and patronizing I don’t expect there will be any citations or additional context forthcoming from you.
Your reasoning in the last sentence is correct – you got something right! “By George, I think she’s got it!”
Thanks for confirming that you’re being intentionally smug and unhelpful instead of engaging in good faith. It’s helpful when people say the quiet parts out loud.
I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt, by being as helpful and informative as I could – simply providing some informatiin that I thought would answer your question. Which you then threw back in my face in an arrogant and smugly superior manner – at the point where you proved you were the a$$hole, I decided not to bother with it anymore.
Not engaging in good faith? That’s funny coming from someone who completely ignored the fact that the paper gave the information he claims to have wanted.
It is revealing that after a couple people made a complete fool of you then you suddenly stopped coming here in this thread, this is why some people tire of having to correct you over and over and to spot your temporary blindness events when a science paper is involved when your temporary blindness prevents you from seeing what everyone else can see easily.
Bla bla bla, your complaining is silly since they are writing for other scientists to read and research on not beer drinking armchair whiners like you.
You make clear you don’t do science research or publish on climate modeling papers which is why you complain over stuff you don’t know about.
I’m getting the impression that AJ considers any fact that he doesn’t know to be, by definition esoteric.
Common knowledge is common knowledge. Should they have to list out what version of software they used as well? Or what graphing software?
I don’t think it’s an issue that they don’t list out the models being used, I think the wording in the manuscript is peculiar (just something of note), and that is contradicts the statement made in the abstract (something that should not have passed review).
They listed ALL 36 models by name early in the paper you claimed you read the paper, maybe your glasses need cleaning since it was very easy to find it.
“I think the wording in the manuscript is peculiar”
ie.. AlanJ does not comprehend. !
No biggie !
Having lost the first discussion, I’ll try to pretend that what I’ve been concerned with all along, is something else.
Do you find that everything in the world is ‘perfect,’ defined as being like you think it should be? Assume for the moment that the reviewers slipped up (or the editor told the authors to shorten the article). It isn’t the first time, and won’t be the last time, that someone wasn’t satisfied with the way an article was written. Whiners don’t get a lot of sympathy.
Or what they had for lunch while they were using the graphing software?
If it’s commercial software, it should be noted. Ideally, if it’s in-house software, the source should be available.
The CPU architecture and compile/interpreter version should be noted as well, along with the compiler directives.
Lorenz’s butterfly lurks in such details.
Most scientists involved in this research already aware of the many models involved in climate modeling after all the Spenser/Christy paper is written for the science field not armchair people like YOU who doesn’t know the background they discuss.
You need to stop digging a hole.
There are 36 coupled atmosphere-ocean models for this purpose in CMIP6. I think CMIP5 had 27 or something.
Model intercomparisons include other types of projects, such as atmosphere only models and other fun stuff at different resolutions and whatnot.
Many thanks in advance for providing that citation.
I don’t believe there are any specific citations for such things. It’s what’s in the wide array of repos for CMIP products. Most literature up to 2021 made reference to the 31 models available at that time. By the end of 2022 36 were available. Literature generally refers to those available at the time of publishing. I suspect a few were not available even at the time of writing sections of AR6. The Working Group on Coupled Modelling endorses the products to ensure they meet technical requirements. The process is not completely neat and tidy nor totally transparent. It’s a bit like herding cats.
My understanding (from reading and looking at numerous examples of “spaghetti graphs” comparing predictions made by the various climate models used by the IPCC) is that there are only something like 30 of the $multimillion USD, supercomputer-based, general circulation models that are distinct and compared to one another.
However, one sometimes sees/hears/reads of much higher numbers of CMIP predictive runs where many of the models have their “tunable” parameters tweaked to see if perhaps they can get closer to the ensemble average*.
*Note: I note that there doesn’t appear to be a concerted effort to get the models to be closer to actual observations (i.e., measured data and trending), probably because doing such would defeat the
alarmistfunding agencies’ agenda.“I note that there doesn’t appear to be a concerted effort to get the models to be closer to actual observations (i.e., measured data and trending), probably because doing such would defeat the
alarmistfunding agencies’ agenda.”Yes, if they were interested in being close to actual observations they would be using the Russian model and scrapping the rest.
Instead, they want to average a bunch of climate models that are way off the mark, and think that means something.
It means that the best model has been corrupted by the inferior models, and the average is going to be inferior as well.
without reading it I already know the errors
This is a problem because it hasnt been independently verified.
2 They Will most likely Fudge something up with Ocean Heat estimates.
Getting this variable grounded requires Modelling. not observations
3They Will estimate Forcing incorrectly.
4their uncertainty calculations will be wrong guaranteed wrong. I’ve Never seen Spensor do a transparent uncertainty calculaion.
look this is simple to a first order sensitivity is the Change in Temperature / Change in Forcing.
To a first Order, so the only way to mess this up, is to mess up temperature or forcing or forget to account for watts hidden in the ocean.
You’re projecting again.
Isn’t it refreshing to find an educated person who posts from an informed position, having read and thought about the paper for some time before coming to a balanced and reasonable conclusion? Oh wait, it’s Mosh, never mind.
Leftists always accuse their enemies of doing exactly what leftists themselves are doing.
I love the way the climate crew just assumes everyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or evil. That’s why there is no need to actually read what others have produced.
Let’s face it steve, even if you did bother to read it, you wouldn’t be able to understand it. They use math above 6th grade standards.
“without reading it I already know the errors”
Quite scientific. Thank you for declaring your prejudice.
Like the rest of the climate crew, steve is mentally incapable of reading anything that might disagree with what he is paid to believe.
“Quite scientific.”
It is what passes for “science” in Moosh-world. !
“They will Probably use their own Bespoke Temperature series”.
”
Far better than pure fabrications like BEST, GISS et al… !
“Getting this variable grounded requires Modelling. not observation”
A moronically anti-science comment !
Ocean heat estimates are always a fudge.. especially in “climate science™”
Moosh will not understand “forcing” because he is scientifically ignorant.
“Claimet science™” uncertainty calculation have been proven to be arrant and complete nonsense.
“watts hidden in the ocean.”
Playing “peeky-boo”.. hiding so the poor little Trenberth clone claimate non-scientists can’t find them.
—-
How did you manage to type such a load of completely stupid BS !!
Your whole comment is totally messed up, even for you. !
“without reading it I already know the errors”
Steven’s self righteous ignorance has reached the level of omniscience!
“They will Probably use their own Bespoke Temperature series”
What is a “Bespoke Temperature series”?
It’s anything that fails to support steve’s favored religion.
Because he is a psychic. (I hope I got the spelling right.)
Even if you didn’t, a psychic like steve will know what you meant.
Good comments. 🙂
“They will Probably use their own Bespoke Temperature series.”
Pretty rich coming from you, Steve.
I ran a search on “bespoke temperature series” and all I got was something about a Samsung refrigerator.
Maybe that’s what Steve was referring to.
I had never heard the use of “bespoke” in relation to a temperature conversation before. This may be unprecedented. 🙂
Great respect for Roy Spencer and John Christy! I just read the new paper.
From the paper – “In the forcing-feedback paradigm of climate change departures from global energy balance…”
And from the phys.org article,
“An important assumption of our model, as well as the more complex models used by others, is that all climate change is human caused,” Spencer states. “If recent warming is partly natural, it would further reduce climate sensitivity.”
But if what if one changes the paradigm to first watch from space to observe the climate system’s highly self-regulating performance as an emitter in the “CO2 Longwave IR” band?
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
And what if one changes the paradigm to emphasize the atmosphere as the working fluid of its own dynamic heat engine to drive just enough energy to high altitude and to the poles to be more easily released to space?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
Lets make it a tad more real to understand why blue sky occurs. This is more than a little important because there was a time when the sun was a little darker with not enough intensity to get the surface above the threshold needed for convective instability. Earth became a snowball and drifted in and out of that condition over millions of years.
Without the heat engine, otherwise known as convective instability, there would never be blue sky and Earth would just be a snowball.
Atmospheric_Convection.pdf
Good point. And it is with impressive localized rates of energy conversion that water is rejected from the atmosphere. For example, a one-inch-per-hour rate of rainfall represents 17,600 W/m^2 as latent heat is released to help drive the motion.
“And from the phys.org article,
“An important assumption of our model, as well as the more complex models used by others, is that all climate change is human caused,” Spencer states. “If recent warming is partly natural, it would further reduce climate sensitivity.””
Roy says if all the warmth is CO2/human-caused, that would equal an ECS of 1.9C.
I believe the IPCC attributes about 40 percent of the warming to natural causes so that would reduce the actual ECS substantially.
And of course, we should keep in mind that there were two previous periods of warming in the 1880’s and the 1930’s that were of similar magnitude to the warming of today, and the IPCC says those warming periods were all natural.
So we have two periods in recent history that warmed just as much as it has warmed today, and nobody attributes those warming periods to CO2, yet when we reach 1980, all of a sudden, CO2 is the dominant factor. It’s not logical.
What Roy is presenting is an upper-bound, establishing a worst-case scenario to emphasize the unlikelihood of it being greater.
Yes, I understood that. So if any part of that warming is caused by Mother Nature, then the 1.9C number would be even lower.
I personally, think that Mother Nature is the source of the Earth warming until proven otherwise, and, as far as I’m concerned, it has not been proven otherwise.
But it’s nice to know that the worst-case scenario with regard to ECS and CO2 is 1.9C.
The more we study it, the lower it goes. Pretty soon, it may disappear. We haven’t even got into negative feedbacks yet. Some people claim CO2 actually has a net cooling effect.
I think we are a long way from declaring CO2 to be the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures (that’s meant for the general audience, Clyde, not you, I know you don’t think that way). A very long way. There are many explanations for what we are seeing today and CO2 is just one of the avenues.
“Spencer and Christy’s new climate sensitivity paper has been published – and its LOWER.”
….
“Land-derived EffCS are larger than over the ocean, and EffCS is lower using the newer Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP245, 1.86 °C global EffCS, ± 34% range 1.48–2.15 °C) than the older Representative Concentration Pathway forcing (RCP6, 2.49 °C global average EffCS, ± 34% range 2.04–2.87 °C).”
Lower because they have used a new scenario. But why does ECS depend on scenario?
Ask the IPCC – it’s what they do, their methodology.
You won’t find the IPCC quoting a scenario with ECS; it’s a property of the Earth. Arrhenius did not use a scenario.
You are completely incorrect – try re-reading the IPCC explanation of their scenarios; some increase or decrease the amount of CO2, some increase or decrease the ECS. The IPCC do exactly what you say they don’t.
Arrhenius didn’t use a scenario and, in his later work, reduced the ECS that he’d previously estimated – he knew that science wasn’t settled and kept on trying to rework his ideas, refining and redoing his work continuously.
It is true that ECS is a property of the climate system, independent of the scenario. But DETERMINING climate sensitivity requires BOTH. Ask any expert on the subject.
Arrhenius didn’t have a physical theory of climate.
“because they have used a new scenario”
Incorrect. Lower because based on observation and measurement, not politicized guesswork based on a simulation. It puts a limit on ECS, invalidating the guesswork.
“Lower because based on observation and measurement”
No, with RCP6 they got 2.49 °C; with SSP245, 1.86 °C. Same methods.
You’d be surprised at what you are calling “observation and measurement”. They use observed temperatures, but on the other side the forcing is from GCM output. The scenarios come in because it isn’t just GCM based on current data; it is in part predicted forcing, which is where the scenarios come in.
Read the abstract, please. You obviously haven’t.
Determining climate sensitivity depends upon both (1) how strong the forcing is (the “scenario”) and (2) how strong the climate system response is (the feedback). BOTH are required. Basic climate science, Nick. For example, for a given rate of observed ocean/land warming, if the forcing that caused it is twice as big, the diagnosed climate sensitivity is reduced by 50%.
The scenario for ECS is not RCPx or whatever. It is a sudden doubling of [CO2]. Even TCR has itown scenario, nothing to do with RCPx.
ECS is a property of the Earth, not human decisions, as expressed by RCP. If you want to use something less than doubling for an “observed” ECS, you have to estimate the relationship correctly. If you’re getting different answers for different scenarios, you’re getting it wrong.
I must say, I can’t see how you’d even use scenarios for observed ECS. Scenarios are for the future, not the past. They should all agree about the past.
“ It is a sudden doubling of [CO2]”
So it is total fantasy.
——-
“They should all agree about the past.”
Particularly if you have enough fake parameters. !
“Basic climate science, Nick. “
I was puzzled enough about the very mention of scenario that I delved into the paper to see how it arose. The model does balance observed temperatures 1970-2021 against forcings. But despite claiming to be “a more observationally based estimate of EfCS”, it gets those forcings from GCM runs. Many here would gag at calling those observations; that isn’t my problem, but rather that the “observations” for the later years are actually GCM predictions from earlier runs,. That is where the scenarios are needed. I do have a problem describing those as observations.
“if the forcing that caused it is twice as big,”
But, of course, no one knows that the forcing caused the temperature change.
Great to see Nick is agreeing that the MAXIMUM possible ECS (assuming all warming from humans) is very low.
I assume he is almost bright enough to realise that other energy movements in the atmosphere will decrease that value even further..
And that many other facets like a series of strong solar cycles, decreased cloudiness over the tropics, the cycles of the AMO, PDO etc etc will also reduce that value…
… “highly likely” to the point where there is no actual evidence of warming by human released atmospheric CO2 whatsoever..
Story Tip.
Just for the CO2 haters 🙂
More Than 1,000 New Coal Power Plants Are Being Built-The Majority In China – Electroverse
Guess what anti-life scammers… if it really is CO2 you are worried about…
.. there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do about it. 😉
I think it is likely that ECS is not a constant.
Again, the biggest problem with computer models is getting them to matchup to reality.
The biggest problem with computer models is to have enough physics to make them causally meaningful.
Very nice.
I came to a very similar conclusion back in 2014 baed on *observed* data. Published here on WUWT :
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/assessment-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-and-catastrophic-global-warming-potential-based-on-the-historical-data-record/
I came up with 1.8 vs 1.9 in this study. In either case, way below the theoretical of the climate models.
There used to be a time when science was based on data & observation. Seems like that is just for “old folks” now.
Seems reasonable. It should be close to Dr. Happer’s radiation estimate of 2.3 C. The missing piece is evaporative cooling induced by downwelling IR from CO2. It will never appear in this kind of analysis since the evaporation occurs primarily in the oceans.
This is what you might see on a planet without water. Mars might be a good example.
Why are some water bodies warming faster than the average, for example the Red Sea, Lake Tanganyika and the Eastern Mediterranean?
And why the blip?
What would happen if I continuously poured light oil onto an enclosed body of water like, for example the Sea of Marmara?
JF
How deep are the bodies of water that you referenced, just as a matter of interest? Are they as deep as, for example, the Pacific Ocean?
The eastern part of the Mediterranean sea is 5121 meters deep (south of Greece).
We know from measurements that most of the deep ocean heating came from a decrease in clouds during the modern warm period. This is the 16th paper I’ve looked at documenting it- Microsoft Word – 230803Ollila- Paper 1 – V3 – Rev Dfinal.docx (scienceofclimatechange.org) The IPCC’s position that most of modern warming is from human emissions has been invalidated by replicated studies.
At most only about 1/3rd of modern warming can be attributed to AGW according to this data. Real sensitivity is closer to 0.6C.
From the article: “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”
“Socioeconomic”, huh. That sounds awfully “woke” to me.
Just what we need, woke scientists putting politics before anthing else.
From the article: “with 80% of those models producing stronger global warming trends for 1970–2021 than do observations”
So why do we keep using climate models that grossly overestimate warming?
We should take the model that resembles reality the closest (the Russian model), and throw the rest in the garbarge.
“Spencer and Christy’s new climate sensitivity paper has been published – and its LOWER.”
Strange how media progresses. Here is Musk himself on vaxx effectiveness reporting over a couple of years :
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1706676593261785178
Climate models progress very like mrna and Ferguson’s plague models.
And eerily similar to the Ukraine “success” – Pentagon’s Palantir AIP AI systems.
All have “rear-view mirror” adjustable parameters, hey, exactly like the Big Bang models now going exactly the same way as vaxx, war, climate.
Eerie lock-stepping, while looking in the rear-view mirror. Not a good way to drive an auto!
2022 Nobel prize in physics John Clauser said that a 5% change in the global cloud cover would be enough to offset the temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The climate knob is not the carbon dioxide but the global nebulosity
There are a couple of things that stick out to me from the publication that at least some of the WUWT community has disapproved of in the past.
1) They accept that the global average temperature is a meaningful and useful metric.
2) They accept that the uncertainty of land and ocean datasets is as advertised and low enough to estimate climate sensitivity.
3) They accept that radiative forcing from CO2 is well established and cite 3.7 W/m2 per 2xCO2.
4) They use a model with free parameters that must be tuned to match observations.
I, of course, do not challenge any of these. For those of you who have challenged these in the past will you also direct those challenges to this publication as well?
Since you do not challenge any of the methods used in the paper to reach their conclusion, then you must also agree with the conclusion that climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPPC has reported.
That of course means that adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere is not an existential crisis and the politically correct path forward for governments is to do nothing as nothing unusual regarding the climate will happen.
QED.
I didn’t say that. What I said is that I do not challenge any of the 4 points I presented.
His only goal is to whine.
When comparing your analysis to someone else’s, you use their numbers.
Nothing unusual about that.
Had they used a more accurate data set, you would be one of the first to declare that failure to use the same dataset invalidates the study.
They also assumed that 100% of the rise in temperature was due to man. Even the IPCC admits that at least 40% is natural.
Only one person commented on that.
Why are you not whining about that?
The whole goal of the paper was to show that the models are incapable of producing accurate forecasts. And they succeeded.
Yeah. How did miss that? Let’s call that number 5.
Where do they say that?
Are you saying the 1.9 C figure for 2xCO2 is not accurate?
Executive Summary: We use models that don’t work to evaluate temperatures we don’t know to get climate sensitivities we can’t justify.