Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, every time I go to look at the climate models, I come away more confused. And today is no exception. I decided to take a look at the relationship between the change in forcing (downwelling radiation) and the change in temperature.
Forcing datasets are somewhat hard to come by, but the Computer Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) forcings for the GISS-E2 model are here. The sum of all the forcings is shown in Figure 1, along with the CEEMD smooth of the data.
Figure 1. Forcings used in the CMIP5 runs by the GISS E2 model.
The big dips in the forcings are the theoretical changes in forcing due to volcanic eruptions.
Next, here is the average surface temperature output of six runs of the GISS E2 model using those forcings, available from the marvelous KNMI website here.
Figure 2. Average of surface temperature (“tas”) output from six CMIP5 GISS model runs.
Already, although the model does a decent job hindcasting the past global surface temperature, we have problems. The difficulty is, back here in the real world, the volcanoes have not had that large an effect on the surface temperature.
Figure 3. Average surface temperature of six CMIP5 GISS model runs compared to Berkeley Earth surface temperature.
Why the exaggeration of the volcano effects? Me, I say it is because as the eruptions cool the surface, the climate responds by the daily tropical cumulus field forming later in the day, and the tropical thunderstorms also forming later or not at all. This warms the surface, counteracting the effects of the eruptions. However, YMMV …
But none of that is what I started out to look at. I wanted to see if the CMIP5 modeled temperatures slavishly follow the forcings. Thirteen years ago, I showed that the temperature output of the CCSM3 climate model could be very closely emulated by a simple one-line formula, viz:
T(n+1) = T(n) + λ ∆F(n+1) * (1- exp( -1 / τ )) + ΔT(n) * exp( -1 / τ )
See the linked post for the description of what the formula means.
So I used that formula, to see how well I could emulate the temperature output using nothing but the forcing applied to the model. Here’s the result:
Figure 3. “Black box” emulation of the GISS-E2 model temperatures, calculated from the forcing alone.
So the situation is unchanged. An R^2 of 0.97 says the emulation is doing a most excellent job. In passing, it’s interesting that the volcanic action in the model averages is a bit larger than in the calculations from the forcing, just as happened with the model average compared to the real world.
In any case, to recap the bidding: The GISS-E2 climate model has 440,000+ lines of code. It has over two million gridcells representing the world, and it takes a whole day to do just one model run on a parallel-processing computer with 88 processors.
And after all that, it merely spits out a lagged and resized version of the input forcing.
Hmmm …
Now, in the formula used to emulate the model output, the variable “lambda” (λ) is the change in temperature resulting (in modelworld) from a 1 watt per square meter (W/m2) increase in forcing. This is a measure of the “transient climate response” (TCR), how the temperature responds in the short term to a change in forcing. It’s usually expressed as the amount of change from a doubling of CO2 (2xCO2).
And the doubling of CO2 is said by the IPCC to increase forcing by 3.7 W/m2. This would make the TCR have a value of 0.41 °C/Wm2 * 3.7 W/m2 per 2xCO2 = 1.5°C / 2xCO2.
Now, I wanted to calculate the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from that TCR value. However, when I went to research that … let me say I was shocked. There’s a good discussion of the issues in an article with the long title “Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models“.
What was shocking? Well, several things. First, according to the article, every different model uses a different value for the increase in forcing from a doubling of CO2. Remember above where I noted that the IPCC says forcing increases by 3.7 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2 (2xCO2)? Here’s what the models say:
Figure 4. Change in forcing from a doubling of CO2 as used by 31 different climate models.
Zowie! The models are all over the place, with values for 2xCO2 forcing ranging from 2.6 to almost 4 W/m2. And the range of the uncertainty on the median value (width of the notch in the sides of the box) doesn’t even include the canonical IPCC value of 3.7 W/m2 … how these jokers have the nerve to call climate science “settled” is a mystery. Not only do we not have agreement on the values of the ECS and the TCR, but we don’t even agree on how much the forcing changes when CO2 doubles! Who knew? I remember Steve McIntyre asking for an engineering-level derivation of the 3.7 W/m2 figure for 2xCO2, but I had no idea that the models disagreed so much on this central figure.
Then there was another surprise. It turns out that the ECS is not some fixed multiple of the TCR. Instead, the ECS of small values of TCR is a smaller multiple of the TCR than for large values of the TCR. Figure 5 shows that relationship.
Figure 5. Scatterplot, ECS values versus TCR values for 31 different climate models.
This relationship would mean that the GISS E2 model would have an ECS on the order of 2°C / 2xCO2 … but of course, that’s only if the 2xCO2 forcing is 3.7 W/m2, when in fact we have values from 2.6 to almost 4 W/m2.
To compound the problem, as you can see, the different models give widely different values for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). They range from 1.8°C to 5.7°C for a doubling of CO2, more than a three-to-one variation.
Here’s the final impossibility. Despite the different models having wildly different equilibrium climate sensitivities and different transient climate responses and different forcing changes from doubling CO2 … somehow they all do a pretty good job of hindcasting the actual temperature record.
And if the models were actually “physics-based” as every modeler claims, this would not be possible. I call this “Dr. Kiehl’s Paradox”, since he noted it first, and I discuss this impossible result here.
Gotta love that settled science …
Look, the ECS is a central, vitally important number in mainstream climate science. The forcing change from doubling CO2 is another central, vitally important number in mainstream climate science. They’ve been studying the subject for a half-century, and both numbers still have an enormous uncertainty range.
And worse than that, the uncertainty of the ECS has gotten wider with more study, not narrower …
Figure 6. ECS estimates over time, from 172 different sources.
In any other science, a half-century spent studying such a central number would result in reduced uncertainty … but in climate science, it’s going the other way.
To me, this is evidence that the basic paradigm of climate science is wrong. This basic paradigm is the claim that the temperature change is a linear function of the forcing change. I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s simplistic nonsense. I think that the climate actively responds to changing conditions and that there are a host of emergent climate phenomena that oppose any warming from any source, including changes in forcing.
Anyhow, that’s the story of my latest wandering through the models … I ended up knowing less than when I started.
Here in the US, it’s Mother’s Day, so my gorgeous ex-fiancee and I are going for a bike ride and then out for dinner … what’s not to like?
Best to all, and remember, when you comment please quote the exact words you’re discussing. It makes everything much clearer.
w.
As a simpleton id still like to know how, using basic physics, this ‘back radiation’ is supposed to work. I know what radiation means, and what molecules do in interaction, vibrational modes of various molecules. I know all of this is taking place close to the Earth’s surface which has an effect there, w conduction/confection, shortwave radiation etc. Further outgoing longwave energy radiation goes upwards from hot to cold until it escapes to space as energy cannot be maintained.
Now tell me how energy from a high altitude which is cold comes BACK to a warmer surface of the Earth and affects the temperature without breaking one or two laws of thermodynamics? And if you use models or anything based on energy (im)balance you are DISMISSED..please enlighten me.
Edit: and i don’t mean back radiation /downwelling from clouds..which is i believe completely overtaken by the albedo effect of the clouds stopping the sun’s energy reaching the surface ( during the day).
I posted on the question here, ballynally.
And there are experimental results from Dr. Roy here.
w.
Thanks for responding.
“cannot flow from cold to hot, but radiated energy sure can.
• A cold atmosphere radiates about 300-plus W/m2 of downwelling radiation measured at the surface. This 300-plus W/m2 of radiated energy leaves the surface warmer than it would be if we were exposed to the 3 W/m2 of outer space.”
But 1: radiation has to go somewhere. Ie, through emissivity/absorbtion fr molecule to molecule, right? How can the small amount of Co2 high up in the atmosphere transfer its energy to a non existent H2o molecule ( and with only 1 vibrational mode)?
2: your statement about ‘downwelling 300+ w/m2 radiation’ is well..a statement based on certain assumptions. Ie, something that might have a different cause. I don’t think your statement actually proves a causation. Just like the whole GHE, a hypothesis.
And yes, a cold object can indeed affect a hot object…in a lab situation. But, im thinking about reality, altitude variations and the actual amount of Co2 levels high up in the atmosphere, the attributes of the molecule, its limited vibrational mode, the absense of H2o, the distance downwards the energy has to travel and the many ‘obstacles’ ( like all the processes taking place close to the surface) on the way. All those factors make me believe the ‘downwelling/ back radiation effect simply HAS to be minimal or none at all.
“But 1: radiation has to go somewhere. Ie, through emissivity/absorbtion fr molecule to molecule, right? How can the small amount of Co2 high up in the atmosphere transfer its energy to a non existent H2o molecule ( and with only 1 vibrational mode)?”
First there are two bending modes, after the molecule has been excited by IR radiation then after a certain delay time the molecule will emit a photon and its energy will return to the ground state. The presence/absence of H2O molecules has no effect.on the emission from CO2.
Emission to what?
Maybe a cold atmosphere does not act as a black body.
I don’t think anyone is claiming “energy from a high altitude which is cold comes BACK to a warmer surface of the Earth”. You should check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
The view as I understand it is more CO2 1) widens the absorption band and 2) raises the effective radiation altitude.
The problem as I see it is that you can’t do this thermodynamic problem without using gradients and integrating over both mass and time. My thermodynamic teacher would have had a fit if I had simply said everything is averaged and used simple arithmetic to solve this kind of problem.
First, heat is actually determined by a temperature change along with mass and specific heat. You can’t just say that absorbing a given amount of radiation will cause a certain temperature rise. It don’t work that way! Radiation can be absorbed and the temperature gradient can be very different from the body that emitted the radiation and vice versa.
I simply don’t see anywhere where people have done the math properly to assess the situation. I’ve spent a lot of time studying Planck. Even he had to begin with the assumptions of black bodies, i.e., 100% absorption/emission. That is the proper way to reduce the complexity of the math, but it is still complicated. Doing simple algebraic addition on radiation flux is way to simple to get an even simplistic answer.
Connundrum: If you have more CO2 at altitude then that should generate more low-energy radiation to space. The two should go together. More radiation to space means more heat loss to space.
What did your thermodynamics teacher tell you that “work” meant, Jim? Does it require the expenditure of energy, or not?
Temperature is NOT and extensive property. It can neither be added, subtracted or averaged, especially not between land , sea and ice. Yet this is exactly what our goto metric for climate is: a non physical “average” with no direct relation to the energy budget changes we are saying is causing it.
Energy is extensive temperature is not, so one cannot be used as a proxy for the other. Specific heat capacity of damp rock is about half that of brine.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/land-sea-ddt/
Hosenfelder really needs to stay in her lane ( whatever that is ). She does not know squat about climate and is pushing an alarmist agenda. She has swallowed the whole scam hook line and sinker without any research or verification . She seems to be yet another who thinks they have to “do their bit” to save the planet.
I can’t bear to watch her any more.
Very nice Willis. What science does the CAGW crowd offer? I don’t consider climate models and anecdotal evidence scientific evidence. All I have seen is models, pictures of glaciers, pictures of polar bears, pictures of coral reefs and pictures of sea level.
The CAGW crowd offers fear and uncertainty with pretty pictures and science-like verbiage which can only be thwarted by one-world authoritarian control and less people, preferably many less people so they’re easier to control.
The elites will rule with an iron fist keeping the unwashed masses cold and starving.
They wish most people to live short brutal lives filled with despair complying with the orders that are given by the ruling elite.
Of course their propaganda only hints at what they truly want.
This is silliness. The problem with CAGW is not that it is some kind of massive concealed conspiracy of wishers of evil on the general population. Its not that kind of thing at all. Its a collective episode of obsessional irrationality which has propagated like such episodes usually do.
An ECS of CO2 is political drivel. Nothing to do with science. The correct value is so close to zero it is unmeasurable.
Whatever value that is chosen for their ECS is determined by their belief. And there is no point arguing with a zealot.
When it comes to climate modelling, do those many models take into account the law of thermodynamics?
An Australian Senator, Gerald Rennick, pointed out according to the law of thermodynamics when 100 parts per million CO2 caused 1 degree C of warming ballpark numbers. Than 1 CO2 molecule has to heat up 10000 other molecules by 1 degree and with CO2 50% heavier than oxygen and nitrogen than that CO2 molecule needs to be at 6600 degree C. Clearly the theory of CO2 driven climate change isn’t compatible with the law of thermodynamics. Gerald Rennick called it the Jesus molecule as CO2 been as hot as 6600 C is as likely as Jesus feeding 5000 people with a handful of fish. That makes a lot more sense to me than the always failing climate models. Any thoughts?
Yes, they do take into account the laws of thermodynamics. No the CO2 molecule does not have to be 6600C.
The forecasts produced by the ensemble of the models are very dubious, but not for this reason.
In other words it’s magic. The law of thermodynamic is very specific that no additional energy can be created. And according to the theory of climate change it’s exclusively CO2 that’s causing the additional heat so it must be 6600 C.
No. According to the theory of climate change it’s exclusively the Sun that’s causing the additional heat.
The idea being that the escape of solar energy out of the Earth’s system is delayed by interaction with GHGs. Heat staying around longer is warming.
Spectroscopy is a real science.
No it’s vibrational energy not translational, the extra energy in the CO2 bending mode is about 8kJ/mole. The molar heat capacity of air is ~29J/mole.ºC
Right on point. Science isn’t settled, yet we are spending trillions. Somehow I think the elites with capital to invest in politicians are reaping a whirlwind.
Having read all comments, a late separate set of observations to WE just reproving again what he first showed here 13 years ago.
There are posters here who don’t understand GHE basics. Educate yourselves.
There are posters here who think the models are ‘physics based’, when they cannot be. See old guest post ‘The trouble with climate models’ for specifics.
Fact is, CMIP requires that unavoidable parameterization be tuned to best hindcast 30 years. Models do NOT do well after tuning, and CMIP hides that by comparing only anomalies rather than actual temperature results. After tuning, +/-5C actual in 30 year hindcasts is a very poor showing. Especially when supposed disaster hits with modeled +1.5C after several future decades.
And tuning drags in the unavoidable attribution problem. Natural variation did not magically stop in 1975. One big reason the models are screwy—CO2 ‘control knob’ assumption is easily provably not true.
A hot mess. Hardly ‘science’, let alone ‘settled science.’
I will help with their education. The GHE is a fairy tale. You can make up whatever you like because it has no bearing on Earth’s energy balance.
A single chart can prove its nonsense.
?ssl=1
Try to explain how the GHE has caused such a dramatic shift in the OLR and SWR just north of the equator in the last 2 decades. Why was it so selective if such a thing as CO2 warming existed?
who claims this is CO2, or are you pretending that ALL change is supposed to be CO2 ?
That latitude looks like the tropical convergence zone. A boost in reflected solar SW will lead to a cooler surface and less surface LW and a drop in the proportion of the LW making to out of the atmosphere. There are larger complementary changes in the SH tropics.
Making a false assumption about the data does not amount to a convincing argument something is “nonsense”.
Definitely not me because I know CO2 does nothing. The IPCC WG1 claim that there is next to zero natural change.
IPCC does claim very little global long term change is natural. [Which is BS] But that is not the question you asked. You asked about local short term event , so that does not counter the IPCC claim.
“There are posters here who don’t understand GHE basics.”
I think you and Willis are at the top of that list, Rud… what do you think “radiation” means?
Cat got your tongue, Rud? Take note that ignoring my fundamental physics question, after casting aspersions on my education, isn’t going to make you look any smarter. (I doubt that you would win any court cases that way, either.)
“Educate yourselves.”
Indeed, many of us have done exactly that, going to great lengths to learn how physics works by dint of prodigious expenditure of time and money – but you and Willis obviously haven’t. For example, he is having an enormous amount of difficulty defining “radiation” for us, in terms that a physicist would recognize. All he can come up with is “you dummy, it’s like sunshine, don’cha know” (lightly paraphrased). Can you help him out? Please?
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it hilarious that a lawyer and a fisherman (oh and a cowboy; Willis is doing double duty) are going to teach the rest of us physics aficionados how the “greenhouse effect” works. Did that plan make more sense in your head? What do you think a judge (not a “woke” one!) would say to your proposal? Would he tell you to stay in your lane, and leave the physics to the physicists?
(No, it’s not impossible for lawyers and fishermen to learn physics, but it’s definitely not trivial, and the two of you aren’t even trying)
Willis makes a lot more sense than you and is generally less shitty about it. Rud is exceptionally bright and well informed and I’d be confident he knows a lot more about the physics of climate than you do, or at least keeps his mouth shut when he doesn’t.
Half this thread seems to be you and yet I have not learnt anything from your comment except what a dk you can be.
Give it a rest.
How much physics have you studied, Greg? Willis and Rud have studied none, this is very obvious.
Oh, and “less shitty”? You are new here, aren’t you? I’ve been trying to teach Willis physics for probably close to 13 years now. In that time, he has called me (and the rest of the actual physicists here) pigs, horses, rats, pond scum (!), and probably several other names that I forget. No, I am not the “dk” here. You don’t get to judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes, as they say. Indeed I am one of the more polite physics teachers here, believe it or not. The reason it looks like I am taking over half the thread is that everyone else simply gave up and called Willis (and Rud) idiots long ago. I certainly don’t blame them.
“Give it a rest”? Sure, I will do that when Willis, Rud, and the rest of their misguided fans (which apparently includes you, now) stop posting false physics on WUWT, the world’s most viewed web site on global warming. Not before.
If you think they are the “bright and well informed” ones, ask Willis (or Rud) what they think “radiation” means. Then, if they answer you at all, try to teach them the correct definition. I will sit here politely on the sidelines and watch. And… go!
We can’t forecast eruption dates, durations, or intensities. Therefore, the best that can be done is to pick nominal values for past events to see potential impacts for arbitrary dates. It appears that significant volcanic eruptions can cause a prompt lowering of temperatures of about 0.1-0.2 deg C. Thus, the Damoclean Volcano hanging over our heads would appear to introduce a long-term future uncertainty of about -0.15 deg C, or about the same as the decadal historical positive temperature trend. That is to say, an unanticipated volcanic eruption can occur at any time and effectively wipe out a decade of warming, for at least a couple of years.
It troubles me that the models don’t advertise their uncertainty for uneventful, long-term trends, for any scenario. If the forecast is based on a particular scenario, and provided as the average of an ensemble, then we can make an estimate of the uncertainty based on the statistical Empirical Rule, which states that for a normal distribution, one can expect about 95% of the observations (or in this case, forecasts) to lie within +/-2 SDs. That is, if we divide the range of all the ensemble runs (highest temperature forecasts minus the lowest temperature forecast) by four, or to be conservative, by six (99.7%), we have an estimate of the ensemble-average’s uncertainty that is good enough for government work. This tells us what kind of accuracy is reasonable for uneventful years, plus what can be expected for years with significant vulcanism. There is then also the question of the bias of models that run warm compared to history.
Why do the atmospheric temperatures re-set after a couple of years, instead of re-starting from a new base-line? The only thing that changed was the sulfates and associated aerosols, until they wash out.
Willis, Climate Science IS settled.
It is settled politically. That means that questions of the kind you raise are ‘inappropriate’ and will not be answered.
It must be clear to everyone now that we are not in Kansas/Science anymore. We are in Wonderland, where the rules of Science do not apply, and words mean whatever you want them to mean. It is a waste of your time to make your points – they will be ignored.
Charlie Makay pointed out that people go mad in herds rapidly and become sane singly and slowly. You must wait.
The forcings used in models appear to not be dimensionally correct. A force has units of Newton N= Kg m/s2 (mass times acceleration) and dimensions of MLT-2. A Wat (W) is a unit of power = J/s = Nm/s =Kg m2/s3. A wat/m2 has the units of kg/s3 or dimensions of MT-3.
I read in a paper on atmospheric temperatures that the author, who was a scientist, made a statement that the vast majority of scientists have no knowledge of dimensional analysis which was founded by an engineer around 1900 and is taught in most engineering courses.
How can any equation be correct or model if dimensions are not correct. Engineers use dimensionless numbers such as the Reynolds number RE for testing, modeling a scalding of processes. Fluid dynamics, Heat & mass transfer, Mathematics, and Thermodynamics are engineering subjects few scientists understand.
How many statisticians, mathematicians, and computer programmers are taught dimensional analysis? Based on my experience almost none.
I think the Happer calculation of TCR from downwelling radiation is: the downwelling radiation = a reduction of outgoing radiation at TOA of approximately 1% (3.7 / 340). So the earth needs to warm by the 4th root of 1% = approx 0.25% of 288K = approx 0.7K. Do you have a comment on that, Willis?
As people have pointed out: it seems outgoing radiation TOA has INCREASED despite rising Co2 levels. So, what do you think that means?
Whatever CO2 forcing is or isn’t it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t change.
“And after all that, it merely spits out a lagged and resized version of the input forcing.“, so effectively GIGO.
“…the basic paradigm of climate science is wrong”
That thermal gradients are independent of GHGs might be one explanation.
While I always marvel at the direct, succinct articles by Willis, I have issue with the following statement in the above article: “Already, although the model does a decent job hindcasting the past global surface temperature, we have problems.”
The “hindcast” only appears correct because of data tampering of the historical record, or making up data that did not exist. When early hindcasts were very wrong, the minions of the Church of Warming [CoW] set about altering the past data to conform to the global warming theory so the hindcast would be congruent.
I present the following as evidence of said data tampering and non scientific methods used by the CoW. It is a graph of the “adjustments” to the USHCN from 1900 to 2020 vs the CO2 concentration. When the “adjustments” form a straight line against CO2, the fix is in, the thumb is on the scale and this is not SCIENCE.
This is a great encapsulation of what’s wrong with climate science. That graph of ECS values spreading out over time should be pulled out at every discussion on climate change and energy policy.
I found Malte Meinshausen’s “RCP Concentration Calculations and Data” page on the PIK website so long ago it took me a while to find the original link again.
URL : https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/
This provides CMIP5 annual numbers for the four main CMIP5 RCP “emissions pathways”, in all cases from 1765 to 2500 (the 1765 to 2005 lines in each file contain the common “Historical Data” model inputs, while the 2006 to 2500 (!) lines contain each pathway’s unique numbers), where :
“Global Annual Mean Mixing Ratios” = Atmospheric abundances / concentrations
“Harmonised Emissions” = Emissions, and
“Global Annual Mean Radiative Forcing” = Forcings
NB : That webpage is so old it uses the original “RCP3-PD” (= “Peak at 3 W/m² [ around 2050 / 2060 ] then Decline”) label instead of the current “RCP2.6 [ W/m² in 2100 ]” one.
Note also the “All Data ZIP (6.0 MB)” link near the bottom of the page, which has everything in a single (relatively) small file.
_ _ _ _ _ _
For CMIP6 the “least bad” forcings (+ concentrations + emissions + …) site I have found so far is the IIASA one.
URL : https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome
After clicking on the “login as guest” button”, clicking on either of the “IAM Scenarios” or “CMIP6 Emissions” tabs will allow access to various sets of “interesting” data, but only with a decadal time resolution (+ 2005) instead of an annual one.
NB : The “Climate –> Forcing –> …” (and “Climate –> Temperature –> Global Mean)” options are under the “IAM Scenarios” tab, along with a whole host of “Indicators” that you (and other readers) may find either “useful” and/or “interesting” regarding the CMIP6 climate models.
Hi Willis, I dug out your old posting with your simplified but highly accurate equation, and it seems that the delta T term is T(n)-T(n-1). This would appear to be an autocorrelation term that would yield a kind of ARIMA series, something that I talked about in a previous article. I tried to put limits on how much positive feedback you could inject into an ARIMA or seasonal ARIMA time series without it blowing up and becoming totally unstable. Have you tried adding in any positive feedback terms to your equation? Your old Excel file may have drifted off to digital purgatory, or I might try to do this. The reason I ask is that to get such high ECS values that you discuss for CO2, one needs to have positive feedback purely via a temperature mechanism. So if you get a temperature transient from a non-CO2 source, it too has to exhibit the same degree of positive feedback.
“I think that the climate actively responds to changing conditions and that there are a host of emergent climate phenomena that oppose any warming from any source, including changes in forcing.”
The AMO is warmer when the solar wind is weaker, and colder when the solar wind is stronger, and it is self amplified by the changes in low cloud cover that it drives. So the negative feedback actually has considerable overshoot.
” somehow they all do a pretty good job of hindcasting the actual temperature record.”
As I’ve pointed out for years, there are an infinite number of ways to hindcast any data series, none of which necessarily have any predictive value.
Anyways it’s pretty clear from the TOA and “hours of sunlight” data that cloud effects are dominating recent temperature trends, and obviously cloud feedbacks from CO2 warming can’t be larger than the CO2 warming because clouds can’t tell cloud warming from CO2 warming so as soon as cloud warming started it would never stop.
Anyways it’s pretty clear from the TOA and hours of sunlight” data that cloud effects” are dominating recent temperature trends”
Not even close to being clear.
TOA TSI has been going in the opposite direction of GAT since the late 1970s
The little information on clouds tells us almost nothing on the climate effects. The changes of the percentage of cloudiness estimates are unlikely to be large enough to be statistically significant.
While clouds block incoming solar energy, SO2 and other air pollution also block incoming solar energy.
Also, albedo changes affect soar energy absorption.
Hours of sunshine does not measure the global average solar energy absorption by earth’s surface
The UK is witnessing an environmental shift that is influencing its engagement with renewable energy. Central to this narrative is the increase in sunlight hours, a phenomenon potentially linked to climate change.
UK: daily sun hours 2022 | Statista
The average annual number of daily sun hours in the UK has remained above four hours per day since 2001, but has not increased above five. Daily sun hours were highest in 2003 at 4.9 hours per day. The following years saw sun hours remain at a similar level, until figures increased again to 4.9 hours in 2022.
In the most recent decade (2013–2022) the UK has had on average 3% more hours of bright sunshine than the 1991–2020 average and 9% more than 1961-1990.
well, it’s clear to some of us 🙂
https://twitter.com/RogTallbloke/status/1674814663538937856
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
Dave, I fear that Rog Tallbloke has blocked me on twitter, despite my never interacting with him there.
Sorry,
w.
Roger is very intolerant of those who question cycles. 😉
I’ve developed a one-dimensional equilibrium infrared absorption model, where the earth is assumed to emit blackbody radiation as a function of ground temperature according to the Planck distribution, and IR radiation is absorbed by CO2 and water vapor using absorption coefficients available in the literature.
The column of air is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium at a “base” concentration of CO2, and if an increase in CO2 concentration absorbs extra IR radiation, the surface temperature is adjusted to re-establish equilibrium, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
By plotting the profile of infrared absorption with altitude, it is found that additional IR radiation is only absorbed within about 10 meters of the surface, and the atmosphere above actually absorbs less infrared radiation when CO2 concentrations increase, causing a very slight cooling.
Both the forcing (additional W/m2 absorbed) and surface temperature increase depend on the assumed initial temperature and humidity. For doubling CO2 concentration from 424 to 848 ppm,
this model results in the following forcing in W/m2:
Initial Temp 0 C 15 C 30 C
30% RH 5.04 4.39 3.33
50% RH 4.38 3.48 2.42
70% RH 3.90 2.91 1.91
This results in the following increases in surface temperature in deg C or K:
Initial Temp 0 C 15 C 30 C
30% RH 1.08 0.80 0.52
50% RH 0.94 0.64 0.38
70% RH 0.84 0.53 0.30
Both the forcing and temperature increases are greater for cold and/or dry air than for warm and/or humid air, since infrared absorption by water vapor screens out some of the radiation that additional CO2 can absorb.
The forcing values in W/m2 predicted by this model are distributed around the 3.7 W/m2 figure used by the IPCC, although half the earth’s surface is between 30 S and 30 N latitude, where surface temperatures and humidities are relatively high, leading to a lower forcing function.
However, the changes in surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration range from 0.30 to 1.08 C, which are much lower than the ECS values calculated by the global circulation models. From this radiation model, the value of “lambda” defined in the article is
0.158 C-m2/W at 30 C
0.183 C-m2/W at 15 C
0.214 C-m2/W at 0 C
The value of lambda used in the article of 0.41 C-m2/W is more than twice the value derived from an infrared radiation balance over the atmosphere.
This means that the global circulation models are over-estimating the temperature response to an increase in forcing (increase in absorbed infrared radiation from CO2) by at least a factor of 2.
This also means that the attempt to limit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is a relatively weak “control knob” over the climate, and most of the observed climate change over the past century was due to natural causes beyond human control.
“most of the observed climate change over the past century was due to natural causes beyond human control.”
When people state conclusions they can not possibly know, I stop listening. You have guessed the effect of CO2 and then used your guess for a conclusion about the causes of past warming.
Evidence does not support any claim that natural causes, or manmade causes, dominated warming after 1975.
More evidence supports manmade warming after 1975. The usual doubting Thomases here can look up the evidence for themselves.
The lack of evidence of natural causes of warming after 1975 is severely handicapped by little money available to investigate natural causes of climate change.
Story tip.
Clouds…
https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/The%20Cloud%20Thermostat.pdf
In the recent Climate the Movie, Clauser was quoted as saying:
“there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and climate change.”
At the link you provided, Clauser wrote
“I assert that the IPCC has not proven global warming! “
On the subject of climate science, John Clauser is an idiot. Only a fool would listen to him
To be more specific, Clauser is a #@ur momisugly$&%# idiot.
He is an expert at making conservatives appear to be science denying fools.
They are not climate models
They are confuser games programmed to scare people with the preferred answer known in advance: +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C. … with over +4.0 degrees C. not a problem.
Only the pesky Russians do not follow the preferred IPCC narrative — they used to be in the old +1.5 to +4.5 IPCC range.
There is zero evidence that long term climate trends can be predicted. Even if every climate change variable was known and well understood.
The details inside the confuser games have to be different to avoid charges of collusion.
But the climate predictions have to be within the IPCC narrative range to please the Climate Howlers.
The average model (aka The Consensus) rate of warming said to be catastrophic is +0.3 degrees C. per decade
Actual global warming was +0.3 degrees C. per decade since 2007.
That means a climate catastrophe rate of global warming has been in progress for almost 17 years.
Even worse, the US reached the dreaded +1.5 degrees C. tipping point last year. I tipped my hat. Nothing else tipped.
And NOAA’s USCRN is rising at +0.34 degrees C. per decade since 2005, almost 19 years ago.
Here in SE Michigan, I have been enjoying the significant warming of our winters, thinking warming was good news
It seems like our Michigan warming may have been at a catastrophic rate … meaning I am enjoying a climate “catastrophe” … and if it continues, I might be able to retire my snow shovel next year.
d
Climate is a “three body problem” with a thousand bodies. To pretend you can even hope to make a model with any predictive ability is delusional.
And if the models were actually “physics-based” as every modeler claims, this would not be possible
====/
weighted parametric models are all doing curve filling. There are an infinite number of curves that will fit the past but diverge in the future.
Willis if I understand you correctly, your lagged model has correctly predicted the future climate (temperature) from the point of view of “now”
A successful prediction of the future in science is A Big Deal.
Nope. It’s no more successful nor unique than any one of the climate models.
All my lagged model does is to emulate the calculation of temperature from forcing. But I have no evidence that the temperature follows the forcing.
w.
Hi Willis, not wishing to pick nits but what you are doing is more complex that a lagged response. Although it does introduce a lag, the exponential also acts as a low-pass filter. Since it effectively integrates and then applies a negative feedback to return to equilibrium, it is quite a suitable model for the temperature of a body absorbing radiation inputs.
This maybe better explained in my fiddlings around with SSN:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/ssn_20y-exp/
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/scripts/
Willis,
You wrote –
“To me, this is evidence that the basic paradigm of climate science is wrong.”
You are absolutely correct, There is no such thing as “climate science”.
Mike Flynn:
Our climate HAS been warming since circa 1980, but there is a straight-forward cause for the warming, which is simply the cleansing of our atmosphere of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution due to “Clean Air” and “Net Zero” activities. This cleansing increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s, causing increasing warming.
This INEVITABLE warming is totally ignored by the “climate scientists”, and, instead, it is attributed to increased levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
As you and Willis say, the basis paradigm of climate science is wrong.
Greg Goodman:
Why are the large 1997-1998 and 2014-2016 El Ninos not shown on the top graph?
Hi, that is TLS (temp of lower stratosphere). Stratosphere does not care about El Ninos. Freedom from all the surface noise is what makes this so useful in seeing that volcanoes do more that just affect 2 or 3 years. Also note the SST data in lower graph is 70S-20S : using southern oceans as a calorimeter without polluting it by doing non physical addition of land and sea temperatures.
You can see the 1998 bump in that SST data.
Note TLS in inverted in lower plot so you can compare stratospheric cooling with surface warming. The volcanic surface cooling is widely used in GCMs, Though there is no account of the subsequent warming which conveniently gets attributed to “other” forcings.