by Frank Bosse
Towards eliminating multi-decadal natural oscillations in determination of the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to CO2.
In the last few month there have been several posts (see here , here , here, here) addressing the sensitivity of our climate to forcing that accounts for the influence of internal variability. This relation is one of the most important questions of the climate research and has far reaching impact to society as the release of carbon dioxide is the main source of planet warming.
The TCR is the most relevant climate sensitivity measure for warming in the 21st century. The mean of the CMIP5 climate models suggests a TCR of 1.8K/doubling of atmospheric CO2. However, a TCR value between 1.3 and 1.4 K is more likely from the observations as it was shown here , here, here and in the cited posts above . However, there are still some discussions in the community about the validity of the observed TCR values and the relation of man made warming to the natural variability.
Improvement of the signal to noise ratio (SNR) in the observed records is required to make progress in the attribution to the causes of warming from external forcing. In his latest blog post, Nicholas Lewis published a figure that showed the slope of the temperature rise due to forcing when the temperatures were adjusted for the AMO:
Fig. 1: The residuals of the temperatures after regression vs. the forcing, included an adjustment for the AMO, source: Fig. 1 of the cited Post.
This Figure is the starting point for this analysis.
An improved AMO index
When one correlates the global forcing data of the IPCC AR5 to the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), there is an interesting signature:
Fig.2: The spatial correlation of forcing and observed temperatures (GISS). The figure was generated with the “KNMI climate explorer”, thanks to Geert-Jan v. Oldenborgh.
I excluded in all the calculations the volcano-forcing because of the well known difficulties with the (in relation to other forcings small) temperature response to this.
In Fig. 2 there are two large regions with pronounced variability, that are only weakly correlated to the forcing: parts the northern extra tropical Atlantic and Pacific northward of 30°N. The Pacific sector is linked to the ENSO behavior, and the Atlantic region is of interest for calculating an AMO-index.The Pacific sector is linked to the ENSO behavior, and the Atlantic region is of interest for calculating an AMO-index.
Oldenborgh et al use the SST of the area 25N -60N; 70W – 7OE and regress them vs. the GMST. In light of Fig.2 , this is an incomplete approach to generate an index that is not influenced by the forcing. As Nicholas Lewis recommended, I regressed the SST (HadISST1) of the area mentioned above vs. the forcings:
Fig. 3: The AMO index (annual data) which is as little as possible influenced by the forcing. The impacts of volcano events on the SST of the northern Atlantic were manually adjusted because not every event since 1870 left a mark proportional to the global volcano-forcing there.
The Index is very similar to the Index of V. Oldenborgh et. al (2009).
Evolution of the GMST since 1951
As shown in this post, there is a long time persistence in the record of the residuals after regression of the “adjusted GMST” to ENSO, Volcano and Solar as it was recommended by “Tamino” :
Fig. 4: The smoothed (with a 15 years Loess low pass) residuals of the GMST of four records after regression of the temperatures vs. the forcing, data from IPCC AR5.
The long time persistence of the records shown in Fig. 4 is accomplished with a Hurst analyses of the annual residuals of the linear regression.
After removing all known influences of forcing and variability, we should only see some noise in the record of the residuals, which should have a Hurst coefficient (H) near 0.5, a random walk. The residuals after removing the forcing, solar, volcano- and also ENSO-events gives H = 1, which means that there still remains strong long-term persistence.
Partial removal of multi-decadal internal variability
I removed the influence of the Atlantic variability, which is not calculated with the participation of GMST per Fig. 3 (without any smoothing), from the GMST records of “Tamino” with a factor of 0.3 which gave the best fit.
Fig. 5: The GMST records adjusted for ENSO, Solar, Volcano (by “Tamino”) and Atlantic variability (AMO, see above) after 1951. The link to the forcing (shown in black) is clearly visible.
The regression vs. forcing looks like this for the case of the “Berkeley Earth” record:
Fig. 6: The regression result. The slope of the linear trend means: A forcing of 1 W/m² generates a warming 0.357 +- 0.026 K (95% confidence).
The TCR value of 1.32 K is calculated using a factor 3.71 W/m² for a doubling of CO2. The TCR results deduced from the four GMST records do not differ much from the results of the former post — GISS : 1.55K, HadCRUT4: 1.26K; C/W-1.33. The R² values were improved in relation to the values of the former post by about 4.5%: 0.94; 0.92; 0.92; what means for “Berkeley Earth” (see Fig.6): 92% of the variability of the temperatures comes from the variability of the forcing. The Hurst analyses for long time persistence for the records gives values near 0.8, a notable reduction versus the non AMO-adjusted data (H=1) and an important step towards eliminating the ‘noise’ from unforced natural climate variability.
Improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio
In the discussion of a former blogpost there was a very interesting aspect: the shorter the observed time span after 1951 used to determine the values of TCR, the lower the value of the TCR, as shown in the comment. This behavior suggests that the time span for a valid TCR-estimation with the regression- method, which is was also exercised in the literature, is around 60 years. Therefore I investigated the time dependency of the results of the TCR regressions after removing the AMO also for shorter time spans:
Fig. 7: The slopes of the regressions of at least 30 years long time spans (with the averages of the four records shown in Fig.5) with AMO adjustment (blue) and without this (red).
The resulting TCR of about 1.35 is remarkably constant over time. The results for the TCR calculated from 1951 to 2015 and from 1971 to 2015 don’t differ by more than 9%. As stronger the fluctuation of the calculated values for the TCR over the time as stronger the still remaining variability in the record because the response of the climate to the forcing should be not time dependent at least in the observed time span 1870-2015.
This insensitivity to the length of the period used to determine TCR also stands if one looks at the longtime record of HadCRUT4 without any further adjustments after removing the years with volcano events:
Fig.8: The slopes of the HadCRUT4 record since 1870 calculated with annual data. The resulting TCR of the AMO-adjusted record (blue) gives 1.38 +-0.1K (95% confidence= 2 sigma) for the time span 1950…2015 with the constant start year 1870. For comparison: the results using AMO-unadjusted data (red).
1.Exclusion of the Atlantic variability Index (AMO) deduced from the SST of the extra tropical northern Atlantic and the forcing data improves the signal-to-noise ratio of the detection of the impact of the forcing on the GMST.
2.The TCR deduced from observations with AMO- adjustment is very constant over the time in the interval 1.25 — 1.55 K; the highest value is calculated from GISS, whereas HadCRUT4 and Berkeley Earth give a TCR of below 1.4 K. The TCR of 1.8 K of the mean of the CMIP5 models is not justified by the historical observations since 1870.
3.The largest remaining source of uncertainty is the forcing data, particularly in the aerosol (and cloud) forcing. The latest results could point to a higher net positive forcing.
Moderation note: As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.
I must have missed the normalization process to eliminate the long term warming trend since 1770.
Or you could take the opposite view, keep the oceans as the best indication of changes in heat content, rather than the air temperatures (variable humidity). HadSST3 tells a clear story of 2015/2016.
Natural variability of the NA SST (AMO) follows same patterns as the tectonic activity and the atmospheric pressure variability in the far N. Atlantic, but there is an inexplicable time scale drift between all three.
(see this LINK )
Vuk, could you please link to tectonic activity data? I don’t know what you mean. Meanwhile, Happy New Year.
It is a compilation of data I collected myself from various sources available on line. It took some time and effort to assemble and crosscheck the sources. Data file with the relevant sources as a supplementary to a paper hopefully might get published sometime in future when the page 4 of the link acquires plausible content.
There is an odd association between solar activity and the N. Atlantic tectonics going back to the mid 1600s
with some coincidences between peaks and troughs, often with tectonics ahead of solar events (explanations available – none)
Three-quarters of a century after the development of a comprehensive framework of analyzing general system response via frequency-dependent transfer functions, it’s staggering to find that simplistic methods of static linear regression are still relied upon in “climate science” to estimate TCR in the presence of “unforced” natural oscillations. Only batwings and chanted incantations are lacking in this primitive ritual by would-be witch doctors.
What on Earth does that comment mean? What is your point you would lie to make, in English, please?
What john321s is saying is that “climate science” has no clue whatsoever about analyzing a system with time varying “inputs/outputs”.
The engineering community is and has been laughing at the climate science community for many years now.
Of course when you are not listening to experts from other fields of technical endevours that have successfully analyzed systems that are a bit less complex you will of course be deaf to their useful advice.
Keep plotting the simple linear regressions without regard for the frequency content of the physical effects you are analyzing and we are all assured of another three decades of no forward progress in determining the “TCR”.
Thank you. I completely missed his point. I agree with you both.
I’m neither an engineer nor a scientist but his point makes all the sense in the world.
Global temperature is a highly non-linear problem with a great many unknowns.
To quote Einstein “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
What we do know (based on ice-core data) is that for the 600K years the temperature has essentially never exceeds the level where we are today. It gets very close approximately every 100,000 years. So the data suggests that there are highly non-linear negative feedbacks at play. Similarly there is a floor on temperatures over the last 600K years that has never been penetrated to the down-side. In between these two extremes the temperature swings back and forth as if a petulant child is at the light switch (approximate quote of Dr. Richard Alley from his book “The 2-Mile Time Machine”)
Since nobody (that I know of) is in the business of estimating those negative feedbacks (not fashionable to go against the CAGW meme) it’s pretty obvious that we’re simply in a gravy-train climate science consumption mode. Hopefully the next administration will significantly trim funding that is dearly needed elsewhere.
Wallensworth’s comment strikes me to be looking at orbital control. While I agree with his point, I would not rely on ice cores to identify warm years. Speleothems are better at that, and the studies I have seen seem to tell a different story of a ~55ky cycle. Not sure why ice cores from polar regions would show a 100ky while speleothems at 60 degrees latitude show 55ky cycles.
The dominant negative feedback can be found in any introductory book on climate science within the first few chapters; it’s the Planck Feedback.
And yes, it’s highly non-linear; a fourth-order equation.
Several lines of observational evidence converging on TCR ~1.3 versus modeled ~1.8. Another way of showing the models run far too hot. And only in the distant modeled future is there any hint of CAGW.
All the efforts to show CAGW in the here and now have failed. Except for a now rapidly cooling 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century. No accelerating SLR. Polar bears thriving. No increase in weather extremes. Planetary greening.
Getting very tough to be a warmunist, as Mother Nature herself is not cooperating. Meawhile renewables have penetrated to the extent their intermittency is making a shambles out of grid reliability in places like South Australia and the UK, while after 20 years they remain economically infeasible without subsidies and preferences.
Yeah, it’s amazing how you can show that the warming has stopped if you cut out the periods with warming. That’s a pretty neat trick.
PS – if you only look at 2000-2014, we still see about 0.10 C +/- 0.15 C per decade of warming.
BW, that was not the arguement. It was, wait a few months longer and lets see what the long record shows. You are being disingenuous, not to mention ignoring all the replys to warmunist attacks on Rose’s article. Which you summarize ‘cherrypicking’ while ignoring the basic refutations to those replies. Typical warmunist tactic.
How much longer should we wait? 3 months? 6? A year?
It won’t matter. The effect of those extra months on the 30-year trend will be completely negligible, and within the error bars. Look back at the temperature record of the last 20 years; the lows keep getting higher, as do the highs. This last El Nino blew 1998 out of the water. And the next La Nina definitely isn’t going to drop us back down to 1999 levels.
It just keeps getting warmer and warmer, but people are still denying mankind’s rather substantial role in the warming. And like I showed; it has already warmed this century, even without 2015-2016.
So saying “getting very tough to be a warmunist, as Mother Nature herself is not cooperating” is pretty laughable.
BW–“Look back at the temperature record of the last 20 years; the lows keep getting higher, as do the highs. ”
Did you factor in the PDO in your analysis? Does your time period even capture a PDO cycle?
I would expect to see a continual warming trend over longer time periods, because that’s what it has been doing, long before the Exxon appeared.
And in case you missed it, go check out Ron Clutz’s page to see how oscillations are affecting this. Then go check Lachniet’s 2014 study that showed warming rate increase 1,600 years ago even the insolation was decreasing, which suggests again that oscillations are responsible.
Benjamin Winchester: How much longer should we wait? 3 months? 6? A year?
Meanwhile, there is much work to fund and to do, especially in upgrading flood control and irrigation systems. With or without global warming, whether it be caused by human CO2 or not, there will always be alternations between flooding and drought wherever there has been, and this focus on trying to halt the warming is taking attention and resources away from solving relatively solvable problems.
Go back 30 years, or 40, or 50 or 60, and you get the same results, yes.
But I’m glad that you agree that it’s been warming. There are plenty of folks here who don’t even do that.
Nah. It was slowly cooling over most of the last 5k years or so, with some oscillations around that. But since 1950, that slow cooling with some oscillations has been completely destroyed. Warming dominates more and more.
Hmm. I wonder why. It’s almost like GHG make the Earth get warmer, and someone’s putting a bunch of them in the atmosphere.
BW–“Nah. It was slowly cooling over most of the last 5k years or so, with some oscillations around that. But since 1950, that slow cooling with some oscillations has been completely destroyed. Warming dominates more and more.”
Unfortunately you can’t support that dogmatic claim, while I can support the inverse, with science. The Anasazi, blackbrush, aspen, bristlecone pine, speleothems, glaciers, dry lake beds, reduced wetlands, latitudinal shift in plant species, and the disappearance of species all say the same thing; you are wrong, by about 20,000 years.
Global warming far predates 1950. So maybe the warming has to do with something else. (like the strongest solar output in 8,000 years)…
Yes the Sun had a part to play in formative GW.
But no longer …..
Banton, i can see by your very own graph that solar activity is still relatively high. THEREFOR, it may very well be the higher solar activity that has caused recent warming. (do you have to keep turning up the flame on the stove to heat a kettle of water?)…
[note, also, that according to your warped logic (and your very own graph) we should not have seen warming in the two decades that followed peak tsi in 1918]
It’s as simple as this: The SUN is what’s doing it. Not CO2. All we need to do is look at the ToA radiation flux data (ERBS+CERES).
And remember, you can’t look at TSI to figure out the solar contribution. You need to look at the ASR (“absorbed solar radiation”), that’s TSI minus reflected SW (albedo). Reflected SW went down significantly between the late 80s and the late 90s, which means that ASR went significantly up. This is the cause of the current radiative imbalance at the ToA, not a reduction in OLR. The OLR simply follows tropospheric temps (up) over time.
(ERBS Ed3_Rev1: OLR (top), reflected SW (middle), net radiation balance (bottom).)
(Reflected SW. Red curve: ERBS Ed3_Rev1; black curve: ISCCP FD; the rest: models.)
okulaer, arguably you are just looking at a positive cloud and ice albedo feedback and attributing it as a cause rather than an effect.
Hey there, Kristian, nice little nugget of truth that you’ve got there. i know you’ve been talking about asr for a long time now. It’s nice, for me at least, to finally see what you’ve been talking about with my own eyes. (up ’til now, i’d only seen your olr graphs) Thanx…
“i can see by your very own graph that solar activity is still relatively high.”
It at it’s lowest for ~50 years!
“do you have to keep turning up the flame on the stove to heat a kettle of water?)…”
That’s why OHC is rising is it?
Now where has the heat reservoir been hiding between the solar max 50 years ago and now such that it is still transferring it’s heat.
Or do you deny that OHC has been increasing for decades?
“note, also, that according to your warped logic (and your very own graph) we should not have seen warming in the two decades that followed peak tsi in 1918]”
Yes we should ( and I believe my “warped logic” was that it DID but no longer ) … so’s how that denying that “we should not have seen warming in the 2 decades that followed ….”?
“And remember, you can’t look at TSI to figure out the solar contribution”
Yes you can.
Go and ask one of the world’s foremost Solar physicists, Leif Svalgaard, or google his contribution to the many “it’s the Sun stupid” threads over at WUWT.
If you mean UV.
That causes a disruption in the Arctic Stratospheric PV, which can filter down to the trop and cause a -AO, thus releasing polar south over winter NH landmasses.
Not W/m2 added to the climate system.
Tony Banton said, January 1, 2017 at 9:10 am |
No, you can’t, Banton. Go read a book. TSI is not the solar input actually absorbed as heat by the Earth system. ASR is. You know, as in “absorbed solar radiation”. ASR is TSI minus reflected SW (albedo). ASR at the ToA is the solar variable relevant to Earth’s energy balance, not TSI. This is pretty elementary stuff.
No. I don’t mean UV. I mean ASR. TSI minus refl SW.
If you cannot distinguish between TSI and solar heat (ASR), then I fear you will never understand any of this.
Err, yes… tsi is still higher than it was prior to WW2 going back centuries (and for that matter millennia). And just like the flame on a stove, the sun doesn’t need to be turned up more and more to heat the oceans. The ocean being so vast it will take centuries for the higher solar energy to complete it’s task of heating the oceans to equilibrium…
Kristian, any idea as to what exactly those changes in albedo are? mostly clouds, sea ice? And what’s driving them? (i think Jim D made an interesting point) Thanx again…
Here’s what Jim D said:
It only takes one glance at these graphs (ERBS Ed3_Rev1) to know what is the cause and what is the effect:
OLR going UP can’t be causing the temps to go up. Because rising OLR means increasing heat loss. ASR going up, however, CAN. Because rising ASR means increasing heat gain.
This is the simple causal chain here, as evidenced by the rise in OLR (tracking the rising tropospheric temps) and the drop in reflected SW (-> rise in ASR):
+ASR (heat IN) -> +T -> +OLR (heat OUT)
(Observed OLR (ERBS Ed3_Rev1), rising, vs. CMIP5 model mean OLR (global & tropical), flat.)
(Observed refl SW (ERBS Ed3_Rev1), dropping, vs. CMIP5 model mean refl SW (global & tropical, flat.)
(Near-global refl SW (ERBS, red; ISCCP FD, black; all others, models).)
(Near-global refl SW inverted (to show as gain) + y-axis fitted gl TSI (top) -> total solar gain (ASR); you see the clear rise starting in 1988-89.)
(ERBS+CERES OLR vs. UAHv6 TLT (tropics).)
(HIRS OLR vs. UAHv6 TLT (tropics).)
(CERES OLR vs. UAHv6 TLT (global).)
As to what caused the considerable drop in reflected SW from the 80s to the late 90s? A clear reduction in cloud cover fraction, significantly in the tropics (ISCCP):
The cause of this reduction? Who knows? I would go with “ocean dynamics”. Big changes to the global ocean/troposphere coupled system occurred from the mid 70s to the early 2000s.
What Jim D is suggesting is that the observed reduction in cloud cover/reflected SW is somehow a mere “feedback” to “greenhouse-induced warming”. Problem is, there is no evidence anywhere of any “greenhouse-induced warming” mechanism. There is only evidence of “solar and ocean-induced warming” in the Earth system. All we see is OLR tracking tropospheric temps, as a radiative effect. Nowhere do we see OLR as a cause or “driver” of tropospheric/surface warming.
So Jim D has a problem. He can’t explain the warming. I can.
“Problem is, there is no evidence anywhere of any “greenhouse-induced warming” mechanism. There is only evidence of “solar and ocean-induced warming” in the Earth system”
“So Jim D has a problem. He can’t explain the warming. I can.”
Actually the none DK types that follow the science can see the blindingly obvious.
That is it is you that has the “problem”, as you seem to suggest this ….
a) The world’s Earth scientists are all incompetent.
b) The world’s Earth scientists are carrying out a fraud.
c) They know more than you.
Which do you suggest it is?
Do you deny the GHE?
Do you deny that atmos CO2 content has risen ~40% since pre-industrial?
Do you deny that C13 depletion shows that it is fossil sourced.
Do you deny that the oceans ph is decreasing?
What are the uncertainties in the CERES estimates of albedo, of OSW?
What are the uncertainties in the determination particularly from SW reflected back from clouds.
The 3D nature of large Cu/CBC cloud comes to mind.
Does CERES measure from vertically above?
I rather think that a slant measure is made.
Are any corrections made from this?
What is the contribution of Arctic albedo decrease in GW?
Any warming in the tropics would reduce the LR there, and so reduce tropical convection a tad. This would make the cloud deck less reflective of SW.
That is counter to your “theory” is it not?
Because at this point they look incompetent. I’ll post this again for your snide comments, do you understand that this is showing?
I even gave you the rest of the data.
Right now, you’re all in the “a” category, incompetent, because I don’t want to believe you are liars instead.
No, you can’t, Banton. Go read a book. TSI is not the solar input actually absorbed as heat by the Earth system. ASR is. You know, as in “absorbed solar radiation”. ASR is TSI minus reflected SW (albedo). ASR at the ToA is the solar variable relevant to Earth’s energy balance, not TSI. This is pretty elementary stuff.”
First off, kindly quit with the “Banton” please.
Have the common curtesy to refer to me by my full name or my forename.
It costs nothing after all.
I don’t need to “read a book”.
As a UKMO employee for 32 years I would suggest it is you that need “to read a book”, if anyone does.
What you say above is quite basic and no book is required it’s just planetary radiation balance, and if you’d made your argument better it would not need guessing.
I might point out that your posting “style’ leaves a lot to be desired my friend.
Now, with a rather more polite, and less arrogant response – could you please address the points I have made in the above post.
Not if you just look at what was recorded. https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/min-max1.png
Banton, you’re rambling, only trying to make up excuses for yourself to keep your cognitive dissonance at bay. Anything but looking at the data actually presented seems to be your MO.
What do you think? Do you think the CERES team are a bunch of dimwits? The high precision over time of the CERES radiometric instruments is as good as it gets. So don’t you worry about that, Banton.
A piece of advice to you: Don’t bother so much about what people are saying, about their opinions, about what they are telling you. What you should pay attention to is the data, the actual observations from the real Earth system. What are they telling you?
You will note that it is only PEOPLE that tell you the warming is caused by us. The actual OBSERVATIONS tell you it isn’t.
Stop it with the holier-than-thou attitude and rather start addressing the data I’m presenting. What does it tell us? The difference between you and I is that I actually back up my arguments with data, with observations from the real world, and explain what they mean. You don’t. You just appeal to the opinion of some or other person and assert your preeminence based on that. THAT is arrogance!
I KNOW that the Sun (+ the ocean), and not some “enhanced GHE”, is the cause of modern ‘global warming’. And not because someone’s told me, but simply because it’s blindingly obvious from the data. That is why I can allow myself to appear arrogant, even though I’m not really at all. You’re arrogant because you simply refuse to acknowledge, much less look at, data that directly contradicts your world view, and just keep on arguing as if the data were never presented in the first place, as if it didn’t even exist.
Dr. Leon Festinger (the man who coined the term “cognitive dissonance”):
This is you, Tony Banton. It’s you he’s describing …
okulaer says “Problem is, there is no evidence anywhere of any “greenhouse-induced warming” mechanism.” This despite presumably knowing that GHG forcing has been sustained around 2 W/m2 and rising for the past few decades being the dominant forcing, It is no stretch to say that the dominant forcing is also the dominant cause of warming. The sun, on the other hand is weaker than it was around 1950 and is more comparable with what it was doing around 1910, since which we have had almost a degree of warming that clearly must be due to something else because the sun is net-zero in terms of its forcing change in the last century and net negative in the last 60 years.
“The Sun… …is more comparable with what it was doing around 1910”
No it ain’t, jim… take a look at the ucolorado link that i’ve got (more than) several comments above. As well, solar activity has been relatively high for the duration of the twentieth century. AND AGAIN, one doesn’t have to keep turning the flame up on the stove for a kettle of water to keep on warming…
Tony Banton, my bad… i’m the one who started with the “banton” thing. Kristian was probably just following suit. (i do have this bad habit of corrupting good characters)
fonzie, the last solar cycle which has occupied most of the time since 2000 has had the least sunspots in a century and also was one of the longest between minima, near 13 years, both being signs of weakness. Meanwhile temperatures have soared to the warmest ever. No visible connection. This solar decline might have helped slow down the warming a little in the decade centered around 2010, but only by a few years because growing GHGs far dominate that effect.
“This is you, Tony Banton. It’s you he’s describing ….”
I regret to inform you that the level of your *responses* here do not conform to the basic norms of polite discourse.
Is this normal for you?
Or are you having some local difficulties at present?
Suffice, that as someone who had a career as a professional MetMan with the UKMO, I am very far from “rambling” my friend.
However, it it makes you feel superior then far be it from me to stop you getting off on being abusive.
You may be my guest …. with others – but NOT with me.
Oh, BTW: I’ve forgotten more about weather/climate than you even know.
TaTa and I a nice life my friend.
I have one outside of the blogosphere of climate science naysayers.
“Because at this point they look incompetent. I’ll post this again for your snide comments, do you understand that this is showing?”
Oh, I must amend my above statement, I forgot micro6500, a resident Sky-dragon slayer, who thinks that WV directs outgoing LWIR around all CO2 molecules to space.
FYI: If it came across as “arrogant” it is because the previous response To me deserved it, and which was NOT you.
Sorry, I Have little patience with people who think they know more than the experts and especially those that deny empirical science.
Those 3 alternatives neatly sum up the position that he holds, and you do apparently by my previous discussions with you.
Sorry but that the logic of options A,B,C evades you and comes across as “arrogant” is just QED my friend.
Tony, that is really a stupid comment, and it’s not factual either. That is data from a professional surface net radiation meter, and your lack of understanding what it means is glaring.
Haha, my thoughts exactly, and while you still don’t understand what it means, my evidence is better than your evidence (co2 has no affect on the results of clear sky nightly cooling).
Here you go, jim… brought it down here where you can see it:
fonzie, even there you can see the unusual length of the last minimum which knocks down the integrated effect. Plus the trend from mid-century is opposite to the temperature trend. No rational person would say the warming since 1950 is from this solar variation that you have illustrated, and that probably includes the Colorado group you keep citing.
How many times do i have to say it? YOU DON’T HAVE TO KEEP TURNING THE FLAME UP ON THE STOVE TO HEAT A KETTLE OF WATER (!)
But we are turning up one flame and it is CO2, so it doesn’t matter what your other relatively weak “flame” is doing. This is just the forcing, quantitatively speaking.
No, this is the quantitative forcing https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/1997-daily-cooling-sample-zoom-with-inset1.png
And zoomed out
That makes absolutely no sense at all. It’s not even water vapor, but fog, you are labeling as a water vapor effect. When RH is 100%, it is fog. This also has no global relevance because you don’t get fog that often or in many places. If you want to see a greenhouse effect, you should try looking for it in clear conditions, because clouds/fog have it anyway.
Except it isn’t visible fog.
These are clear conditions.
Then it makes even less sense, because the greenhouse effect responds to water vapor amount which is not the same as RH.
Makes perfect sense. It’s in the cooling rate, and people forget there is an optical hole in the clear sky spectrum.
It only makes even a little sense if you have fog or low clouds forming when it reaches 100%, and you insist that even at 100% there is none. Were you there?
Not those, but the hundreds of times I measured the the same decay in cooling while taking long exposure deepspace astrophotography images. Why I know there was no optical fog.
If the column water vapor didn’t increase, there is no reason for the cooling to decrease, and at night there is no reason for the water vapor to increase. 100% RH means clouds/mist, and that has a big effect.
No, as it cools at night rel humidity goes up, as you can see, you can also see the net radiation drop as it nears 100%. This mechanism explains global clear sky cooling rates.
It is water vapor amount, not RH, that determines the radiative effect, unless it is 100% when it is clouds that determine it. You had clouds/mist/fog there.
Not optically I’m taking pictures of space while it is happening. That’s why this is a game changer, a newly discovered regulation.
RH=100% means one thing: saturation. Saturation means cloud droplets. Cloud droplets reduce net cooling even in small amounts because water is a very effective emitter.
Yes, happens every night most of the planet, reduces outgoing radiation by about 2/3rds. I’m sure it is water droplets, they are just invisible In optical wavelengths, but obviously not in all of the LWIR bands.
You can’t generalize one site to the planet.
Sure you can. The entire planet has water vapor, and cools off at night. This happens everywhere except maybe the driest deserts, and of course the tropics cool little at night.
You may get radiative clouds every night where you live, but I can assure you that is not the norm globally.
Of course it is.
Where’s your 100% RH?
It’s the daily average. Of course it doesn’t show 100%, that only happens at night after it has cooled.
Show the night-time average then.
The data set only includes dew point once a day. But the chart with net rad has rel humidity.
You seem to be showing random station plots now. This is pointless.
No, it’s all views of temp and rel humidity. The first with net rad from Australia the rest from my station in Ohio. The average data is ncdc gsod dataset.
You have to show that there are clouds everywhere globally at night. How do you propose to do that?
I’m suggesting that nightly cooling is regulated by dew point temperature, like any regulator reference point, the regulator will track it’s reference point, so all stations min temp should be tracking dew point, and when you look at 80 million station records min temp tracks dew point temperature. So, go find daily temperature and dew point data, find clear days, and look at the cooling rates. You are correct in that absolute humidity does effect the rates, but as long as it can cool to near dew point, the cooling rate will change. Oh, the IR thermometer and weather data graph show that in the 8u-14u window it never closes (it’s as about the same temp colder than surface as it was at max temp).
Of course cooling is regulated by dew point, not only at the surface but for the whole column, or more precisely, the column water vapor content, which is its greenhouse effect. The tropics cool less because of more moisture, and deserts cool more because of less greenhouse effect. You are not saying anything new there. That window does close when there are clouds, of course.
Jim, it is not clouds, I would not be able to photograph galaxies if it was cloudy.
I was saying clouds block IR at all wavelengths, even the window you mention. I don’t know why you mention photography in this context.
It doesn’t block all wavelengths of IR, that what the IR thermometer trace shows. Optical is open, 8u-14u is open. I can’t “see” outside that band, the net rad iirc is a bidirectional LWIR setup. And I’ve detected the dual rate cooling for years that traces dew point. This is why it can’t be co2. At low rel humidity , it cools at high speed, until the air temp drops down to some fraction of dew point temperature. On land, most places there just isn’t an unlimited amount of water to evaporate during the day, so absolute humidity changes slowly, rel humidity goes up and down every night. If it warm 2 degrees more during the day, it still drops to the same air temp before it slows down, if it has to cool an extra 2 degrees it just stays at high cooling a little longer.
There is another possibility, what happens to a active gas, whose elements are in an excited state when you slowly reduce the environments energy?
I have no idea what you are getting at. How do you get those “elements” in an excited state? Lasers?
A large population of Water vapor that is trying to condense, like what happens in a lasar.
A large population of Water vapor that is trying to condense.
In normal air, there are enough nuclei that, as soon as RH reaches 100%, you will have cloud droplets and these have an immediate IR effect at all wavelengths.
Must be only the ones with water lines, because the optical window is open proportionally, ie if the sky is 95F colder than the ground at 6pm, it’ll be about the same after hours of the slow cooling rate.
Cooling won’t affect IR in the window region unless it gets cold enough to produce clouds. Otherwise the window IR temperature stays constant. For CO2 you have to compare 15 um with the window and notice that it is warmer in clear skies due to CO2 emission.
Doesn’t matter if it’s warmer, at the high rate it just cools 5 more minutes before it starts to slow the cooling rate, and after it slows it doesn’t matter it’s trying not to cool by then.
Yes, it matters that the 15 um CO2 band appears warmer. Take the CO2 away and the downward LW is that much less. Double CO2 and it increases. This is the whole point.
Not when there’s active regulation. This is how switching power supplies regulate their output voltage basically.
Not making sense.
Because you do not understand nonlinear active “circuits”
No, it obviously changes the cooling rate as rel humidity nears 100%
Yes, cloud droplets or mist.
Only part of the band though.
All IR wavelengths. Check Modtran.
Unless it emulates this process of air temp cooling down to dew point and then explicitly what it does, it’s likely wrong because it’s a typical air sample, and it needs a full nights of cooling, an instance is not correct. And again, I provided measurements showing that assumption is also wrong.
Doubling CO2 is like adding water vapor in clear conditions. You have agreed that adding water vapor increases the greenhouse effect, right? And that CO2 also has thermal IR bands, right?
It would reduce the high rate from -50W/m^2 to -46W/m^2 and stay in high cooling rate for maybe 5 minutes longer than it other wise would before transitioning to slow mode for hours longer. Active regulation. The staple of control theory. Co2 doesn’t not add linearly to temp.
Over oceans you have no diurnal cycle to attach your (wrong) idea to. The CO2 effect persists 24/365. Several extra W/m2 for warming the surface, and that is what is happening, and no one is surprised.
Doesn’t matter during the day, right? That’s want your side has said for years. Is rel humidity 100% over the entire ocean surface? I don’t think so.
The CO2 effect persists day and night. That is really important to understand. It may be easier to see at night, but it is there the whole time providing a significant fraction of the surface downwelling IR.
And it’s also radiating to space all day long too, but all of that is accounted for in the net radiation value.
Yes, and its presence means less is radiated to space because it emits from higher levels, so we get warming that way too, because it has to compensate for less being radiated. This is how it works.
But it doesn’t, it regulates to dew point temp look at the min temp dew point chart. Min temp /dew point is not going up, it just follows SST and which way the wind blows the water vapor.
Are you expecting climate change to show up in that? Why? We don’t know if the land gets drier or moister under climate change. It depends a lot on where you are. Over warmer oceans the dew point will be higher, of course.
How is there an accumulation of stored heat, if min temp isn’t going up?
How can the mean temp go up if the min temp, you say, isn’t? Do you not agree that the ocean is accumulating heat?
I think I showed you my best estimate of what was measured.
The mean temperature is rising. I have seen evidence that the diurnal range is increasing which may mean the minimum increases more slowly than the mean. This is expected because the land is warming twice as fast as the ocean, so it is getting relatively drier, which would increase the diurnal range.
BTW, my diff temp value is a pretty good match to satellite temp.
The land just follows the dew point of the wind blowing inland, and when the pdo changes, a whole ocean of warm air blows someplace else.
The ocean is not warming as fast, and that’s where the vapor largely is controlled. Warmer land, same vapor, means lower RH, less clouds, more sun, drier soil, larger diurnal range, and all else that goes with that.
I showed you surface data, I got far more details to back them up. It is not co2.
These are all land.
Here is CRUTEM4 (land).
It shows annual variations due to the ENSO cycle and a large trend that yours curiously misses. They also do a true geographic land average by binning stations in areas which is important in properly canceling local variations.
That’s because they change the data, I do nothing to it. And my next project is to add binning. It’s not going to change the relationship between min and max temperature, or nightly cooling, but I expect the temp series will look different. But as it is now, the places that have the best coverage have the lowest uncertainty, because they are over represented.
You seem to have a method that can’t even detect which years are warmer. Are you averaging different years together or something? Is it too noisy because you have too few stations otherwise? CRUTEM4 use tens of thousands of stations, so they can detect things like warm years with less background noise.
80 million station records, over about 12,000 stations I’d guess. And what do you mean I can’t tell a warm year?
1998 doesn’t show up in your graph at all. That was a warm year even for land stations, about 0.5 C warmer than the previous year and you have them about the same. I suspect 2016 won’t show up either by your methods. Why was there a 10 F global warming in one year around 1972 in your max and min data? CRUTEM4 never varies more than about 1 F from year to year which seems more realistic for a global average. The whole change since 1950 from CRUTEM4 is about 1-2 F.
What do you mean? It has 1998 https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/min-max1.png as did the range, and min-rel humidity chart.
Hard to make a case that 1998 is much different from 1997 there.
Look at min max and range from about 1995-2001
Then go look at this http://wp.me/p5VgHU-1t at the 20-30 N same period
I am not going to even pretend to understand what you are saying there. I was talking about your previous graph not showing 1998 in a supposed global mean, and now you are not showing that anymore because I think you see the problem.
What are you looking at that doesn’t have 1998? Oh, that is 3 or 4 days in 1997 clear sky in Australia. It’s like 3 days and parts of 4 nights. And Willis complained about the x axis, but I haven’t gotten excel to label it properly. I have an older version, but it’s a few days, not years.
This of yours doesn’t have a peak at 1998.
but it does have an inexplicable 10 F rise around 1972. What happened in 1972?
The number of actual station records and stations had the equivalent of a mass extinction then, I think it was the transition to the new electronic stations. All the other series do so much homogenization and infilling they never show this. All my data is ncdc gsod dataset.
Lack of accounting for spatial positions of stations would be at fault for that, and also some homogenization to account for changes like that. You need to look at the techniques used by BEST to avoid problems such as yours.
Actually the point was to do as little of that as possible, I’d rather throw those years out. But as I mentioned last night I think I’m works to normalize by area. After 1980 the data is OK in the Northern Hemisphere.
You think it is OK, but the lesson is that you can’t just take a bunch of stations and average them without knowing how they change with time. The TOB correction is another obvious one.
Only because there was so few data, and I provide statistics for each day or year depending on the report type.
Long-term homogenous data is especially important when looking for trends. What you have doesn’t serve the purpose.
Then start your trend in 1980.
…and make sure your stations don’t keep moving around, changing observation times, or instrumentation. Lots of work. Not as simple as you think.
Not the point Jim. Min temp follows dew point temperature and co2 is irrelevant to min temp.
The ocean heat content is rising and this is because the IR forcing has increased by a few W/m2.
Only if you make up data, dew points went up a little, but because of the pdo warming the north pacific which blows more water vapor over land, but you can see rel humidity is not going up. Go back to the daily net radiation showing it is regulating cooling to dew point. The only thing that happened, was the pdo swapped warm spots.
Why do you expect it to regulate cooling to dew point in a visible way with your data? How much effect are you looking for? Did anyone expect an extra 2 W/m2 since 1900 to have a big effect there? The bigger and lasting effect of a persistent 2 W/m2 is on the ocean heat content and surface temperature. It’s an integrated effect that becomes more obvious with time.
Compare range to min max in about 96, 99 and 2000
It doesn’t get cooler at night in the tropics?
The average temp drop is 15.1F, Avg min is 70.4, max is 85.5, Dew Point is 67.4, and rel humidity is 72.7% at the max temp. Entropy at max with water vapor is 73.8 kJ/kg, and it drops 9.9kJ/kg dry air, and 1.74kJ/kg water vapor at min temp.
7.1 million station records 1940-2015. <23.5 S to <23.5 N lat
Over oceans the diurnal range is about 1 C.
They each address one of your questions with actual data with evidence for each point.
How would you know? They are invisible! Though you can see the outgoing rate change.
You all need more troubleshooting, and RF transmission and transmission line theory.
Well, jimbo, at least you gave up on your dopey “the trend from mid-century is opposite to the temperature trend” argument. (that’s progress…) It’s getting late here in new orleans. i imagine i’ll get back with you tomorrow. For now, i’ll leave you with my original comment in reply to BW:
Global warming far predates 1950. So maybe the warming has to do with something else. (like the highest solar output in 8,000 years)…
fonzie, check the forcings for some perspective. You can see the sun there too if you look carefully.
Jim D said, January 2, 2017 at 12:18 pm:
LOL! It’s been a while since I saw a more “Spaghetti Monster” type of argument to proclaim the ‘reality’ of an invisible AGW. We can’t see it anywhere, but we still know it’s there! Because we … just do. Because it must be! Paraphrasing Bobby Henderson of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: “We have evidence WE’RE the cause of ‘global warming’. Not actual observational evidence from the real world, of course, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy assessment reports and tons of experts explaining all details on how “CO2 forcing” drives our global climate.”
Thanks for the laugh, Jim D!
Nice to have the ability to just ignore completely everything that your opponents have been saying and all the data they’ve been presenting just upthread and rather just go on arguing your case as if it were established Truth and “everyone should know”, because that’s what your “theory” proclaims, contrary to all actual observational evidence, isn’t it, Jim D?
Where exactly is this “2 W/m^2 forcing” of yours? Where is it hiding? How do you know it’s there? Can you point it out in any observational data from the real Earth system?
It’s merely a hypothetical, calculated figure, Jim D, and you should know.
The “forcing” behind the warming is all solar:
What observations we have show that Earth’s global surface has got its radiative heat loss (net LW) strengthened, not weakened, and considerably at that, since 2000, in part due to a relative reduction, not a releative increase, in estimated DWLWIR. This is the opposite of what you would expect from an “enhanced GHE”:
OLR at the ToA has simply gone up in step with tropospheric temps, Jim D. That’s not a sign of a working “2 W/m^2 forcing” causing the warming. That’s a clear sign that NOTHING is going on regarding your hypotesized “enhanced GHE” …
You can’t just have “greenhouse warming” out of nothing. Because you feel and think it should be there somehow. Because “my theory says…” You need a mechanism. And you need to actually see it in operation somewhere. Out there in the real world …
Where do you see it?
No, Jim D. We’re not talking about TSI. We’re talking about ASR. ASR is UP significantly since the mid 80s (see above). And is the direct and sole cause of our current radiative imbalance at the global ToA. The OLR is working towards closing the imbalance …
We know this not from “theory”, but from real-world observations …
I would urge you to stop arguing with these people about TSI as if it were equal to “solar forcing”. It’s not. ASR is. TSI minus refl SW (albedo). ASR is the actual “solar heat” (net SW) to the Earth system. Cloud cover being its main determinant.
“And only in the distant modeled future is there any hint of CAGW.”
Except for the downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, disappearing mountain glaciers and sea level rise.
So the Arctic sea is is retreating. I am not worried. It’s cold in the Winter there and comes back. It’s good for trade, commerce, gas and oil extraction and shipping.
I don’t care how many mountain glacier we lose in the U.S. It’s not going to be catastrophic.
Sea level rise is an inch a decade. We got a century before it matters.
Arctic ice extent is about all you have. Glacier retreat, besides being documented as preceding human CO2 impacts, is also subject to small sample size. The percentage of glaciers which are regularly monitored are but a small number of glaciers in existence.
As for sea level rise, that only plays if you tap dance around the numbers.
If you think you will be frolicking in my front yard otter, you are suffering from hallucinations.
Do you realise that ice at the poles is rare? Just 25% of the past half billion years has had ice at the poles:
Do you realise that life thrived during warmer times than now and struggled during colder times?
Do you realise the planet is near the coldest it’s been since animal life began?
Do you realise that 3C increase in GMST would not get the planet back up to the middle of the temperature range experienced during the past 500 Ma?
More here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494
“Do you realise that ice at the poles is rare? Just 25% of the past half billion years has had ice at the poles:”
So? What is your point?
You replied to Rud Istvan, and mentioned downward trend in Arctic ice exten as evidence of CAGW. It is not evidence of CAGW. You have provided no evidence of CAGW. I was pointing this out to you. Sorry if you don’t understand.
One person’s catastrophe is another person’s inconvenience. Perhaps you need to define catastrophic.
I think flooded cities is pretty catastrophic. I daresay melting permafrost that wrecks one’s village or loss of glacier-fed irrigation water is pretty catastrophic as well.
If you can demonstrate that a downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, disappearing mountain glaciers and sea level rise were not occurring during the non-Minoan Warm Period, the non-Roman Warm Period and the non-Medieval Warm Period, then you might have a hole-in-one. As it is, your statement is one big whiff.
“As it is, your statement is one big whiff.”
You do realize you are making an argument from ignorance?
As to these warm periods you refer to, what evidence to you have they were as warm as or warmer than the current global warming event? And were they global or regional?
“And only in the distant modeled future is there any hint of CAGW.”
Except for the downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, disappearing mountain glaciers and sea level rise.
Don’t forget the ocean heat content and the surface temperatures!
Yeah I know. But whenever I mention global mean temperature or ocean heat content to these people, they claim the data is fabricated!
Once someone goes down the Conspiracy Theory rabbit hole, only a ferret can flush them back out :-)
No, I leave that to you to start and end with ignorance. Your whole team’s premise drips with inductive inference. The kind that is practiced by 8th graders everywhere after their teacher tells them about AGW, after which the 8th grader promptly induces that everything they read about and observe is caused by CO2.
You demonstrate no evidence that the listed conditions were not occurring during those 3 periods. And you provide no evidence of absence of those periods. I know the entire song and dance about the amplitude, spatial coverage and synchronicity issues. Given the error bars involved with any kind of analysis that far back, who knows. I do know the literature is replete with references to the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm anomalies. I have satisfied myself after looking at the exhaustive list of studies now bookmarked on my computer that there were warm periods, that they cover more than just the Northern Hemisphere and that even today the globe is not synchronous as to all elements of our climate. If those previous periods were not precisely as warm as today, why do you think that all those conditions above could still not have been occurring?
The lack of studies covering every single country proves nothing except that no study has been performed in every country. When that happens and evidence is shown to not have had warm periods then you might have something. Until then you are locked into the tedious team mantra that only illustrates how some are more prone to brainwashing than others. Keep on keeping on.
Ocean heat content from Scripps:
From 500 meters to 2000 meters: 0.02 C per decade of warming.
The top 500 meters is: 0.05 per decade of warming.
How far above ocean temperatures can the GMST rise?
Yes there has been a significant and material rise in the ENSO region SSTs. It is an interface, probably the most important one. This interface sits on top of what I mentioned, thermal mass which isn’t going anywhere in a hurry. It is going somewhere very slowly.
In the past there was the discussion about a leashed dog. The atmosphere is the dog and the oceans hold the leash.
We count the pile of money with a thousand dollars in it. The pile with a dollar in it, not so much.
“Below the sea surface, historical measurements of temperature are far sparser, and the warming is more gradual, about 0.01°C per decade at 1,000 meters.”
1000 meters 0.01 C per decade warming
“One person’s catastrophe is another person’s inconvenience. Perhaps you need to define catastrophic.”
Climate change is local and varies by region. That is why it can be argued that adaptation is better than mitigation. 1000 windmills in Minnesota does nothing for the Ganges Delta problems.
We count the pile of money with a thousand dollars in it. The pile with a dollar in it, not so much.
But that is exactly what you are doing.
I’m counting one bill: a dog too big for your little leash:
Sea level air: 1 density
Sea: 784 densities
Air to sea: I am going to warm you. I have CO2.
Sea: How much more?
Air: 40% more than I used to. What have you got?
Sea: A lot of friends stacked about 4 kilometers deep.
Air: I control clouds.
Sea: I have the water and the most of the sunlight.
Air: You’re melting.
Sea: It was about 0.07 C too warm for my tastes, so I thought I’d warm the Arctic air for awhile and cool off a bit.
Air: No, I warmed the Arctic.
Sea: With the CO2. You made it rain too?
Air: That was I.
“1000 meters 0.01 C per decade warming”
Try working that out into ZJ’s
And then apply that heat to the atmosphere.
Just for fun that is of course.
I doubt you would get it.
ZJs, time, volume and density go into the rise per decade. A trillion is a big number. What was the number a year ago? 0.995 trillion.
If the ZJs come out of the oceans suddenly and materially, it will warm the atmosphere a lot. Suggesting the oceans can overwhelm the atmosphere, at all times.
The reverse would be the atmosphere suddenly sending its ZJs suddenly and materially into the oceans. Measuring the oceans to their full depths, it would be hard to detect.
“You demonstrate no evidence that the listed conditions were not occurring during those 3 periods.”
Argument from ignorance.
“The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events…”
“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”
I think that small sample sizes can tell us something. So if they did paleo in one area, that’s similar to the Central England Temperature record.
Ragnaar, Mann was skeptical of what they mean by “recent decades” from cores, plus a few other things like sea-levels not supporting such warmth in the MWP.
The paper is Kopp 2016 stefan at RC was a co-author. You can see where the error bars disappear. Again, the data has to be sewed together. In about 1875 we reached the lowest value in 1875 years. The dip starting in about 1600 is the 2nd second most severe combo sustained over the whole time frame. The break at about 1875 may be partly attributed to a return to the mean of the prior 1875 years. There is a mean between a glacial and interglacial that we keep overshooting. Smaller scale, same deal perhaps.
I think flooded cities is pretty catastrophic.
Not much evidence of this actually happening.
I’ve been fortunate enough to have had dinner on the waterfront
in Gig Harbor, San Francisco, San Diego, San Carlos Mexico,
Port Aransas Texas, Miami, Havre de Grace Maryland, and Boston Harbor.
No one at these restaurants appeared to be very concerned about flooding.
loss of glacier-fed irrigation water is pretty catastrophic as well.
This one always amuses me – if glaciers never melted, they wouldn’t be a source of water.
Not much evidence of this actually happening.
I’ve been fortunate enough to have had dinner on the waterfront
in Gig Harbor, San Francisco, San Diego, San Carlos Mexico,
Port Aransas Texas, Miami, Havre de Grace Maryland, and Boston Harbor.
No one at these restaurants appeared to be very concerned about flooding.
Brilliant… just plain brilliant. I bet Mitrovica has never thought of this.
If forced to choose between my eyes and your imagination, I’ll take my eyes.
Why would you do that? That’s stupid. It’s a property of the nuclei of that water molecule. If it makes it’s way to the surface it will radiate to space if it’s clear out.
I generally agree with everything you’re saying. The other point is that market forces will naturally limit CO2 production as solar and nuclear (yes, nuclear) become ever more cost effective. (I personally hope to see some for of LENR play out, but we’ll see on that one…) Electric/hybrid cars are also likely be be a large market segment going forward, which will reduce CO2 production as well.
CAGW looks to be a non-problem, certainly compared to the many larger problems we face.
Very interesting post. Thank you. Nic Lewis and you are doing for climate sensitivity the equivalent of what Steve McIntyre did to paleo-climate data and the Michael Mann Hockey Stick. This is real science.
However, I feel it is way past time climate researchers focused on collecting and analysis the evidence to define and calibrate the damage function. Without a valid damage function there is not valid evidence that GHG emissions will do more harm than good, and there can be no valid justification for mitigation policies.
Judith, In the New Year, could we have some posts on the damage function and especially on the evidence used to derive them and calibrate them?
Could someone who can run FUND, please run it with a range of ECS and TCR values to show the sensitivity of SCC to varying ECS from 1.65K to 3K and TCR from 1.35K to 1.8K (or what ever ranges are appropriate)?
You might want to read the analysis by Robert Pindyck of MIT, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? (see http://www.nber.org/papers/w19244 ). Answer (not to give it away) – not much.
By the way, although Prof. Pindyck has a PhD in economics, he also has degrees in physics and engineering.
And I know it’s hard to keep track of all the literature, but I also recommend the working paper by Ross McKitrick and colleagues, Empirically-Constrained Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon (see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2759505).
Thank you for the link. I had read that some time ago. As it says there is little evidence to derive and calibrate the damage functions. The damage functions are the greatest unknown by far in the assessments of impacts and SCC. That is why I keep harping on about it and trying to get someone to run FUND and do sensitivity analyses on the most important parameters:
– Damage function
– ECS, TCR
– RCP6 ( not RCP8.5)
– discount rate
– participation rate
Pages 13 says:
However, is 5 C increase in GMST realistic given that:
– ECS is trending down (from mean 3C to perhaps 1.65C)
– RCP8.5 is worst case; should use RCP6.
– Importantly, the planet is in a coldhouse phase, near the coldest it’s been in the past 540 Ma and unlikely to get out of it until the tectonic plates move to free up ocean circulation around the low latitudes and block free flow of ocean currents around Antarctica.
More on this here if interested: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494
Read Ross McKitrick and frequently cite it.
So you know what I already understand and what is motivating my questions, could I ask you to look at the sequence of comments I posted here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494
Another reason I doubt the “catastrophic impacts” scenario is because we can fossil fuels for energy production within a little over half a century if we really want to – and I am not referring to renewables. The block is the so called environmentalists and so called ‘Progressives”. They have delayed progress for half a century: https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/
Robert Pindyck of MIT, 2011, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” (http://www.nber.org/papers/w19244 ) says:
Has a consensus been reached on the probabilities of say 3C, 4C, 5C increase in GMST by say 2100? What are the agreed probabilities? What is the basis for the estimates?
I would be very concerned that any consensus on these probabilities would be influenced by group-think and ideological beliefs in CAGW.
I suggest we should give up on that idea. It almost certainly cannot succeed. It is the wrong approach, IMO. There are better ways; see:
Why Carbon Pricing will Not Succeed https://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/
I should have said in my first comment: thank you for your many interesting and informative comments on this and past threads.
Hi Peter, Good to see such a knowledgeable commenter. Thanks for the kind words and for the link to your interesting analysis on carbon taxes. Knowing you are so widely read I’m somewhat reluctant to send along another link, but this paper by Drs. Soon and Legates is not so well known as it was published in a somewhat obscure legal journal, see http://elq.typepad.com/currents/2010/00/C37-0-SoonLegates-2010-0225.pdf .
Yes, we could greatly reduce carbon emissions by using another proven power source that is seldom named.
Thank you for the link to the Soon and Legates paper. I had not seen it before. It is good that it is published in a legal journal. More papers are needed to inform lawyers and policy makers.
I agree with them on policy related issues. This is my area of interest. I don’t want to discuss their climate change opinions because doing so inevitably diverts discussion away from what is important and relevant for policy analysis into the area the alarmists want to spend all their time arguing about.
I’m glad I read the Pindyck paper. The statement “….damage functions used…are completely made up…” says it all. What the author did after a meticulous analysis was to confirm my intuitive sense of inherent problems in this kind of product. The discount rate is just one of many causes for concern.
I understand why you are troubled, Peter.
Turning over a new rock seems to always result in a loss of confidence rather than a reason for more confidence.
With respect, the climate models are not capable of making coherent predictions into the distant future due to fundamental mathematical shortcomings (ability to solve exceptionally complex non-linear partial differential equations). Seems to me the analysis is kind of academically interesting but of doubtful real-world value.
Have you tried to solve exceptionally complex non-linear PDEs?
There’s over a century of research into it, and a host of techniques which can do quite well (Newton’s Method, Runge-Kutta, etc.). Being “exceptionally complex” isn’t actually a barrier.
The main barrier to making coherent climate predictions is knowing the future forcings, which is why scientists normally make projections instead.
Fails at the fundamental level – impossible to establish whether or not unique and useful solutions are possible owing to the vast numbers of uncertain variables, vast areas and time scales, complex & chaotic nature of the climate, etc., etc.
In the engineering world, we test simulations versus reality. No can do with climate models.
Just because you can create a simulation, it does not follow that it reflects reality – think computer games. As Dirty Harry once observed “you’ve got to know your limitations.” The climate modeling folks should take that to heart and stop trying to con everybody!
Well yes – involved nuclear reactors. The climate is vastly more complex.
BW, you may have gotten those methods off Wikipedia, and they are superficially impressive sounding. But had you bothered to read Wikipedia, you would have discovered Runge-Kutta is a numerical approximation to ordinary differential equations. Navier -Stokes requires solutions to partial differential equations, for which a $1 million Millennium Prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute is available for a solution. Even a good, reliable, Runge Kutta numerical approximation solution. The prize has not been claimed.
Feynman tried experimentally and mathematically for years and failed. See his resulting ‘equation sermon’ in Lectures on Physics, V2, chapter 41 (the flow of wet water, a joke since chapter 40 fully solves the flow of dry water omitting viscosity), section 6 on couette flow, last three paragraphs.
You want to play your propaganda head fake game here, best up it a lot. You just flunked anything beyond introductory high school calculus. And you should study more of Feynman’s Lectures of Physics, like I have.
Heh, no, I’ve got a copy of Burden & Faires’ Numerical Analysis sitting not 3 feet away from me, from undergrad, which I still use rather thoroughly as a reference. Plus assorted other books on numerical methods, variational calculus, real and complex analysis, linear algebra, spectral methods, etc.
You’re correct; I stand corrected. Heh. Been a while since I used RK.
Of course, none of this changes the point: there’s no fundamental issue with solving “complex non-linear PDEs”. The complexity of the problems aren’t an issue, but how smooth the parameter space, how well-defined the problem, etc. Nor are these issues fundamentally a problem for climate models.
No, a discretized, numerical approximation wouldn’t be a solution to any of the Clay Institute problems. They’re looking for mathematical proofs, not numerical approximations. RK won’t help you there.
You can find the problem description here:
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case versus BW.
Nor are these issues fundamentally a problem for climate models.
Remember how Lorenz infamously realized the limits to predictability – he typed in fewer decimal places on inputs to the non-linear equations. He realized that even infinitely small differences would yield divergent solutions to fluid flow over time ( and that time is a few days ).
It is not the complexity, but the linearizations of non-linear solutions that necessarily causes the instability.
Now, for RF, which is less determined by fluid flow, the solutions are more stable, so predictions of global mean temperature ( after allowing for fluctuations ) are likely more reliable.
But predicting climate necessarily means predicting the results of fluid flow, ( precipitation, storms, clouds, etc. ) This has not proven possible beyond a week or so:
I maintain that the AMO is strongly solar forced.
What is more relevant to policy is “effective TCR” which is the amount of warming per added CO2. This gives numbers of the order 2 C per CO2 doubling as when you take this graph to do that calculation.
Here 100 ppm per deg C is the scaling that fits and it shows that CO2 levels provide a good proxy for the total forcing. With this 2 C per doubling number, we can account for all the warming since 1950 as CO2 went from 310 ppm to 400 ppm, and we can use it to say something about transient temperature response as we reach 600-1000 ppm under various scenarios over the next century.
JD, you are apparently quite fact and math and reading challenged. Else you would not have posted a link specifically refuted by this guest post.
Not even a nice try. Rather, pathetic.
No, you can try the numbers yourself. For a CO2 change from 310 ppm to 400 ppm since 1950, TCR=1.35 predicts 0.5 C, and is clearly not good for planning. TCR=2 predicts 0.75 C, much better for planning because the actual warming was about 0.8 C. If you underestimate the effects by a third, it is a major problem. The post came without any caution on how their number should be used because it cannot be used as-is for sure.
JD: You can make a very easy operation for the case 1951 to 2015: The GMST increased about 0.67 K
and the forcing increased by about 1.8W/m². This gives 0.37 K/W/m². When you know that a doubling of CO2 generates 3.71 W/m²… how do you calculate a TCR of 2? My result is 1.39… A little ( only a little) more sophisticated:
“What makes you think “we” have any control over where the CO2 level is in 2100?”
Not perfect control – obviously!
However striving to reduce fossil burning is some measure of it.
That is certainly “any”.
Should we throw up our arms in despair and do nothing because “we” don’t/can’t have (insert your measure) of “control”.
What is more relevant to policy is “effective TCR”
I’m not sure any measure of global temperature is relevant to policy.
How does global temperature relate to the frequency of actual temperature at a location? to precipitation? to storms? to impacts from any of these?
Global temperature change doesn’t tell you very much about any of this.
If one considers the frequency at which given temperatures occur, there’s not a significant variance.
Do we want a 700 ppm world with steadily increasing CO2 in 2100, or would we prefer something nearer 400 ppm and stable? These are the relevant questions of the day and we have that choice.
JD says: Do we want a 700 ppm world with steadily increasing CO2 in 2100, or would we prefer something nearer 400 ppm and stable? These are the relevant questions of the day and we have that choice.
What makes you think “we” have any control over where the CO2 level is in 2100?
“What makes you think “we” have any control over where the CO2 level is in 2100?”
Not perfect control – obviously!
However striving to reduce fossil burning is some measure of it.
That is certainly “any”.
Should we throw up our arms in despair and do nothing because “we” don’t/can’t have (insert your measure) of “control”.
How about because it won’t do anything at all.
“How about because it won’t do anything at all.”
That could only come from someone who *denies* the GHE of CO2 (?)
TB says: “Should we throw up our arms in despair and do nothing because “we” don’t/can’t have (insert your measure) of “control”.”
Why would we act at all? Cheap energy is the key to economic advancement of the poorest parts of the world. Renewables aren’t cheap.
Why should we continue to hold millions of people in economic “prison” by refusing to make cheap energy available to them?
TB – has CO2 been higher anytime in the history of the earth than it is today? (Answer = yes). How is it you think we can “control” it within any range?
Tony Banton, you write:
“That could only come from someone who *denies* the GHE of CO2 …”
Not true. I accept the GHE of CO2, but I am not convinced that the current concentration of atmospheric CO2 has not effectively “saturated” its GHE. I don’t think I’m alone in this.
It’s selectively saturated http://wp.me/p5VgHU-2A
My feeling is the TCR is in the ballpark. What will be interesting is how the ECS evolves, given the fact that Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected.
Arctic ice isn’t disappearing, it’s losing surface extent and volume, and it’s not doing so faster than predicted. The change causes feedbacks, and we don’t fully understand whether they will end up being positive or negative.
Seeing the way things work I’m starting to think we are in a full scale simulation, and the code has some shortcuts and minor glitches. This universe is just too anthopocentric to be real.
“Arctic ice isn’t disappearing, it’s losing surface extent and volume, and it’s not doing so faster than predicted. ”
Patently not the case…..
I check the Danish Metereological Institute web pages for Arctic data. It’s not as politically driven as USA based data sources, which have increasingly become corrupted over the last 8 years.
I have been keeping an eye on Arctic ice in the Barents, Pechora, Kara and Beaufort seas because I worked on Arctic navigation and construction in the 1990’s. So my background includes knowledge of data and observations held in private data bases. The decline in sea ice is roughly as predicted (I just can’t tell you who predicted it). I also note that both Danish and private interpretation and models say the USA based plots aren’t exactly right. This is simply a case of looking at the problem with a different set of cards in our hands.
This brings up an interesting point. In this particular case I happened to fall through the rabbit hole by accident. I had no particular interest in global warming or Arctic ice when I decided to shift locations and work on cold region projects. It was something I did because I wanted a change and I was curious. And knowing what I know I do see a huge effort to put together a bunch of propaganda meant to induce panic and drive people in a set direction.
This makes me wonder, what if I decide to spend 15 years looking at cloud cover over the North Pacific, or were able to install my private satellite to measure earth shine in multiple wavelengths from a lagrangian point? Will I see what the USA government says I ought to see, or will I find sonething else? Were the WMD in Iraq? Did the Russians really turn Trump into a KGB agent?
We don’t have to make this hard. Internal variability IS a factor in climate sensitivity. Determining the effective altitude and temperature of the planet is HARD. Determining sensitivity is exponentially hard.
It is very clear that internal variability can completely override (1945 to 76) and nullify (~2000 to 2016) any effect of CO2…
As far as I understand the basic assumption is that there is a linear response of Temperatures to C02-forcing. Then a regression line with the least residual variance would give the implied natural forcing. But to somehow verify this theory scientifically you have to come up with an independent estimate of natural variability. Right so far?
Now given you construed that estimate out of observations about the correlation of Temperatures with forcings (Fig. 2) how independent is this estimate of natural variability from the theory to be tested?
Hurst exponents of 1 make me bit uneasy. It seems to be fiendishly difficult even to generate time-series with Hurst exponents above 0.8 reliably. The higher the more difficult.
I don’t remember the details unfortunately, but I believe estimating exponents in this range is equally problematic. But maybe there’s some commercial software (more sophisticated than Mathematica) that can do this.
As an aside, the more doctored temperature-series (Mann e.g.) when analyzed look much less “Hurstish” than the less doctored ones.
Try this one: http://www.long-memory.com/Hurst.xls . All the useful hints for using it are included.
Frank Bosse, you are continuing the myth that ENSO is noise on a anthropogenically forced global warming signal, when, in reality, ENSO (acting as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator) is a process that can cause long-term global warming over multidecadal time periods or stop that warming.
Indeed, Bob, chaos and noise are two very different things. If the scale of the chaos is large enough there need be no “signal” for a given forcing. Winter and summer yes, but CO2 no. In this sense TCR need not exist, because a wide range of states are possible when CO2 happens to double, including cooling. CO2 level does not determine temperature.
“ENSO (acting as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator) is a process that can cause long-term global warming over multidecadal time periods or stop that warming.”
PDO/ENSO is a cycle.
IF the planet were in long-term balance regarding Solar SW absorbed v LWIR emitted- then the cyle would ocsillate around a neutral mean.
The fact that is not – and at the same time OHC is increaing – shows that imbalance and that ergo ENSO MUST by riding on the overall signal of AGW.
Otherwise you are suggesting that it would raise the GMST of and by itself with some miraculous acquired heat.
If that were the case then (bar the planck feedback) the oceans woud have boiled away millenia ago.
The energy has to come from the Sun.
We know it’s NOT the Sun (ask Leif Svalgaard).
Not the SW absorbed side of the equn.
SO it must be the LWIR emitted side.
That that cannot be seen as obvious in the theory of EN driven GW is beyond me.
For heat to be transfered the hotter object must cool.
Yes. Is it not possible that a warm northern pacific/ cold southern pacific vs a cold northern pacific/warm southern pacific would have a different effect on the well measured northern Hemisphere temperature (vs the poorly measured southern Hemisphere)? Even if it was all asymmetry in land distribution?
Bob: The ENSO “adjusting” comes from “Tamino”. See Fig.8: No adjustment att all and over all the same result.
What happens to the TCR estimate if one uses the UAH satellite data instead of the questionable surface temperature statistics? There is a lot less warming and it comes in El Nino driven steps with flat trends in between. Look for GW in the atmosphere not the boundary layer.
UAH: 0.355K/W/m²; TCR=1.32
PS: much more variability on Troposhere-Temps: 1.32+-0.3 K with 95% confidence…
I have no idea what you are measuring but it certainly is not TCR.
Put another way, I see no GHG signal whatever in the satellite record. None at all. Just ENSO driven steps.
And what drives ENSO-steps ?
Certainly not CO2. my guess is ocean circulation.
You’re not looking. It’s all steps up, oceans and surface, so only additional energy can do that. With redistribution only, there have to be steps both up and down. It’s all up.
I am looking at the atmosphere. The surface and ocean estimates are statistical junk.
Well, your argument is junk.
How so? The surface and ocean estimates are based on sparse convenience samples, as I have explained in great detail before.
Almost nobody agrees with you, and they never will… because you’re wrong. But plod on. It’s entertaining.
once again Wojick Alt science.
The surface record and the SST record are used to make a spatial PREDICTION of values at unsampled locations. The accuracy of the prediction is tested by holding out data.
The alternative is concluding that we know nothing about temperature change, can never know anything, the LIA never happened, and we should just junk weather predictions because THEY TOO are based on the same surface data
So, JCH, no actual argument. I have not seen anyone actually disagree with me in so far as responding to my points, especially the inconvenience of a convenience sample. Funny that. So while no one agrees with me, so too no one disagrees either. CAGW is all about ignoring inconvenient stuff.
My point is so basic that it nullifies most of the so-called science, on mathematical grounds. Math trumps.
So how are my arguments “junk”?
“Put another way, I see no GHG signal whatever in the satellite record. None at all. Just ENSO driven steps.”
But you have to explain where PDO/ENSO gets its energy from the create those “steps”.
It cant “pull itself up by its boot-straps” by simply existing, else the oceans would have boiled away long ago.
“Certainly not CO2. my guess is ocean circulation.”
Well yes PDO/ENSO is a manifestation of ocean currents (along with tropospheric coupling).
Still no explanation of where these ZJ’s of energy are coming from to simultaneously drive tropospheric warming and increase OHC.
I’ll let you know….
It’s not the Sun. ie SW absorbed.
Rather leaves LWIR emitted then.
Oh, and – “if one uses the UAH satellite data instead of the questionable surface temperature statistics?”
So UAH is not questionable? At all? Even a bit?
After all we have V6(beta5) now.
Sure the other version weren’t better?
Because they were adjustments. Weren’t they?
I mean the ones done on GISS were fraudulent of course.
Different rules for UAH then?
I wonder why that would be.
Mosher, you are raving as usual. The surface infill is actually an unverifiable postdiction, not a prediction, but in either case it is not a fact, as is claimed. It is an artifact. We cannot know more than we can know. Live with it. Basing draconian government policies on wild guesses is wrong, period.
But my point is much simpler. The satellite measurements trump the silly surface statistical models. There is zero evidence of GHG warming.
I agree with David Wojick.
1. Explain how you do not see a GHG signal. Explain what that looks like. When I last checked the satellite records they show a warming trend which is consistent with a rising greenhouse effect.
2. If ENSO is continuously increasing the Global Mean Temperature, then the ocean has to cool down according to the conservation of energy. Please show your evidence for the cool down of the ocean.
==> Basing draconian government policies on wild guesses is wrong, period. ==>
So much for uncertainties, eh David?
Tell me, how does one become so certain about the net effects/outcomes of government policies when something as basic as quantifying externalities remains beyond your grasp?
Harry, the UAH sat record shows no warming from the beginning in 1978 until the big ENSO in 1998-2000. Flat trend. After the big ENSO the trend is again flat, but a step warmer. Until the latest big ENSO, which has yet to resolve itself, but which may again step up. There is no GHG warming in this step function.
“Harry, the UAH sat record shows no warming from the beginning in 1978 until the big ENSO in 1998-2000. Flat trend.”
No, it does not. It shows a warming trend. Perhaps you should check your calculations (hint: least squares trend line).
Trend: 0.154 ±0.063 °C/decade (2σ) UAH version 5.6
David Wojick: . There is no GHG warming in this step function.
There is no good reason to draw that inference: nonlinear dissipative systems can respond with step-wise increments as a result of continuous input. Examples can be found in almost all the textbooks and monographs. I recommend “Modern Thermodynamics” by Kondepudi and Prigogine, the later chapters.
David Wojick: The surface and ocean estimates are statistical junk.
You’re serious, aren’t you? Not just trying to provoke someone?
You are right of course, there is clearly a warming trend in the short UAH satellite record
I have only just read David’s post but surely what he is saying is that there is no GHG warming. I assume he is wanting you to determine and prove that it is CHG caused, rather than a natural warming
“I have only just read David’s post but surely what he is saying is that there is no GHG warming. I assume he is wanting you to determine and prove that it is CHG caused, rather than a natural warming”
Sorry it’s not good enough to just hand-wave a “there is no GHG warming”.
What is it then.
It is NOT natural warming as PDO/ENSO continually ramps up, whilst the OHC does likewise.
You cannot invoke natural warming without explaining that conundrum.
To wave it away smacks at other than dispassionate “scepticism”
It is not my hand waving. I am merely being an interpreter, as It is what I assume David is saying. Either Harry or David need to justify their apparent position vis a vis natural variability or ghg induced
I see the “let’s get slobber knockered” gang is out in force.
Fair enough Tony.
With a purple haze nod to the Church of the AMO, without ACO2 (the blue line) the au naturel 2015-2016 El Niño would be at the end of the long wiggly veggie green line.
Tony Banton said, December 30, 2016 at 4:40 pm:
No, the hand-wave is in saying “there is GHG warming” without actually showing it … In just pointing to rising temps and automatically go “Look, GHG warming!”
Of course it is! Sun+Ocean.
Of course you can! Remember? SUN+ocean. The SUN is the energy provider. Just like you’re invoking CO2 as the energy provider, apparently also warming both the ocean depths and the surface and the troposphere at the same time. Newsflash: It’s the Sun doing it, not CO2. How do I know? It’s right there in the ToA radiation flux data.
Here Went the Sun
“Of course you can! Remember? SUN+ocean. The SUN is the energy provider. Just like you’re invoking CO2 as the energy provider, apparently also warming both the ocean depths and the surface and the troposphere at the same time.”
If the TSI were in balance with emitted LWIR then the excess would not be being stored as OHC, and at the same time that OHC warming the Troposphere.
If the SW absorbed has not increased. ( it has not long-term since the decline ~ 50 years ago ).
Then the LWIR emitted MUST have decreased in order for the above to be happening.
It’s a simple equation of balance.
Less going out.
If you still hold onto “it’s the sun stupid” argument, then the conversation is ended.
Ask Leif, though I spect as he is an “expert” he will garner especial contempt.
Tell me where the ZJ’s of energy are coming from, and it isn’t the sun since around 1960.
(though aerosols balanced CO2 until around 1970)
Else you must find the mysterious medium whereby it’s been lurking to be still flowing from it into the oceans and from thence to the air.
“apparently also warming both the ocean depths and the surface and the troposphere at the same time.”
Well yes as I’ve said, it isn’t the Sun.
So it must be.
There is no other source.
Unless you want to go down the undersea volcanoes route.
The problem Tony is that at any one instant, it isn’t in balance, between the tilt in axis, and with the land ocean asymmetry it’s never radiatively in balance, it is another one that requires a long term average, but worse is it needs the entire planet monitored 24×7 to see what the outgoing is. It is obviously dynamic and unless they have really good coverage, poor sampling would lead to poor assumptions.
“Newsflash: It’s the Sun doing it, not CO2. How do I know? It’s right there in the ToA radiation flux data.”
Is it also cooling the stratosphere?
There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing
greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. – Trenberth
No. Reduced ozone and increased CO2 – in the stratosphere itself – is most likely doing that :)
In quoting Trenberth & Fasullo, you conveniently “forgot” to include the preceding sentence:
Their study examine what climate models predict is going to happen IN THE FUTURE. In other words, your quote is specifically NOT a statement about what has happened in the climate system up to this point in time, but rather one about what might start happening within a few decades …
Here’s their Figure 1. Take a good look, JCH:
What do they have to say about it?
I could also quote from the more recent Donohoe et al., 2014, if you want …
Tony Banton said, January 1, 2017 at 10:06 am:
Of course not. But it’s not in balance. There is more ASR (solar heat in) than OLR (earth heat out) at the global ToA. That’s the positive radiative heat imbalance at the ToA. But this is specifically caused not by a reduction in the OLR (from an “enhanced GHE”), but from an increase in the ASR (from a significant reduction in (principally the tropical) cloud cover during the 90s). We see this very clearly in the ToA radiation flux data.
Banton, this is not about TSI, it’s about ASR. How much of the TSI is actually absorbed by the Earth system, that is, how much of it is not reflected back out to space.
TSI is not Sun’s heat to Earth. ASR is. TSI minus reflected SW.
If you cannot manage to distinguish between the two, you will never understand.
There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. – Trenberth
Thanks for posting this interesting quote. I’ve observed this in the GCM runs, but it’s also highly questionable, to say the least.
Clouds are dynamic features, the result of dynamic fluid flow, the kind that’s not predictable, so it’s highly doubtful to begin with. But especially so given the model inability to even model the past precipitation.
Here is an early Manabe model 4xCO2 SW forcing change versus the NASA GISS 4xCO2, run some three+ decades later:
The early very high levels from the Manabe model disappeared.
But the models can’t get precip right, they propably can’t get clouds right either.
In other words, the quote is speculative, at best unverified and unvalidated, at worst: worthless.
There is more ASR (solar heat in) than OLR (earth heat out) at the global ToA.
This may well be the case, but it’s not a matter of certainty.
Albedo measurements have measurement uncertainty of much greater than the 3.7W/m^2 of 2xCO2. Reflections are both dynamic ( given clouds ) and anisotropic ( meaning a single or even multiple satellite vantages can’t accurately assess reflected solar ).
Now, OHC does tend to confirm an imbalance, but there is also uncertainty with those estimates. And confirmatory aspects are fertile grounds for confirmation bias.
“Mosher, you are raving as usual. The surface infill is actually an unverifiable postdiction, not a prediction, but in either case it is not a fact, as is claimed. It is an artifact. We cannot know more than we can know. Live with it. Basing draconian government policies on wild guesses is wrong, period.”
No it’s verifiable. It’s a fact.
And we can know more than you think.
However Do not confuse what we know, with what knowledge is required for policy
NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER is required for policy. All that is required is power.
The simple way to see how spatial prediction works is to take the USA as an example.
There are 114 or so gold standard stations.
And over 15,000 other stations ( more than this actually but you have to pay to get the data 0
Take those 114 stations and create a spatial model of the whole US.
Then… validate the prediction ( that is what a spatial model does ) by looking at the 15000 stations that are NOT USED to build the model.
basic out of sample testing.
In real life we do this all the time except less formally and less precisely.
I check the weather in San Jose this morning.. That weather is actually a spatial prediction. I know to wear a jacket because the prediction says its cold. the spatial prediction is built from just a few sites and physics.
That shows you another way to understand the uncertainity in the prediction.. by comparing the answers of spatial statitistics with the answers given by physics ( otherwise known as weaher model or re analysis)
So yes in fact we KNOW that it warmer now than in the LIA.
We have a good understand that it was probably colder in the LIA from very sparse reports..
We have a much better understanding that it is warmer now from more complete reports..
yes there was a MWP…
We understand that from a few scattered proxies of temperature..
warmer colder warmer..
yes the climate changes,, despite David’s denial of this
Since you build your climate temp field based on lat, although, distance from water(oceans) and then scrape off the variable weather while averaging temperature threads from long distances, how do you compare an actual measurement against your field and grade whether the field value matches a local climate?
… However, a large spread in the net SW feedback across models (because of clouds) produces a range of OLR responses; in those few models with a weak SW feedback, OLR takes centuries to recover, and energy accumulation is dominated by reduced OLR. Observational constraints of radiative feedbacks—from satellite radiation and surface temperature data—suggest an OLR recovery timescale of decades or less, consistent with the majority of GCMs. Altogether, these results suggest that, although greenhouse gas forcing predominantly acts to reduce OLR, the resulting global warming is likely caused by enhanced ASR. …
“…yes there was a MWP…
We understand that from a few scattered proxies of temperature..”
I recall being taught about sample sizes as small as 2. The statistics of small sample sizes. Auditing involves sampling and efficient auditing considers smaller sample sizes. I don’t understand the models used or the higher math used by Mosher. But the idea seems valid.
If we had only 10 stations in the world randomly located we’d have a good chance to be able to see the warming since the Little Ice Age.
Contiguous United States:
How close does one state match to a larger area with fewer data points early? Not bad. If we only had Minnesota data what could we conclude? Minnesota’s climate is connected to a lot of the climate, which in turn is connected to the rest of the climate.
Ok, so you do want me to quote Donohoe et al., 2014.
Again, that’s over the 21st century. In the future.
So there you have it. The present positive radiative imbalance at the ToA [ASR − OLR] is apparently caused by some never-observed reduction in OLR (−0.8 W/m^2) and rather countered somewhat by a never-observed reduction in ASR (−0.2 W/m^2) [−0.2 − (−0.8) = +0.6 W/m^2].
Completely at odds with what we have in fact observed in the real Earth system over the last 32 years. There ASR has gone significantly UP and so has OLR, the direct opposite of what “Climate Science” claims …
“NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER is required for policy.”
It’s early, but I’m gonna nominate this one for Quote of the Year 2017.
Good nomination. I agree with the statement though I think that
Do not confuse what we know, with what knowledge is required for policy
is a much more useful caution to heed.
Or, policy needs no knowledge because it’s mindless to begin with.
I read SM’s statement as simply noting that policy can be made without being informed and that is true though not wise. Policy without input can be poor, sure,,,but on the other hand even good input does not insure good policy.
So as SM noted, Do not confuse what we know, with what knowledge is required for policy. Real decisions are choices under uncertainty. Uncertainty in the broadest sense subsumes ignorance (that can come in many forms.)
You can’t distinguish a trend from a cycle with data short compared to the cycle to be eliminated. The eigenvalues of the discriminating matrix explode.
So the short data leaves conclusions vulnerable to longer cycles, which apparently exist with great amplitude.
So you don’t get forcing without that qualification.
The straight line trend is an input to data reduction, not an output from it. A long cycle would serve as well, if it were substituted.
What “long cycle”?
Any long cycle. The earth has been having huge cycles for aeons.
A cycle of any length, of course, can’t be human-caused.
If you can’t distinguish a trend from a long cycle, you can’t infer anything is human caused, which is the case.
Mysteriously, this elementary mathematical fact can’t make it into climate science’s repertoire.
They always, always, take out what cycles they can, and leave as a result a trend.
This is a mathematical mistake.
150 Ma cycle of ice ages
100 ka cycle of glacial periods during the Pleistocene and Permian-Carboniferous Ice Ages
900 year cycle of warm and cool periods during the Holocene.
There’s the LIA rebound/unrebound cycle.
What is the LIA unrebound? A new concept?
Yes, one equally as ridiculous as the LIA rebound. Let’s put the LIA rebound in a climate model. Line 892357777: computer, now make it all magically bounce up… you know… like Flubber
From the article:
n the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.
Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.
“Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity”
What does that statement mean? Who are the researchers predicting a planet-ending calamity? I can personally think of one. Do you have a list I can check?
From the article:
These risks are potentially serious, Higgins said. He noted that scientists do not know definitively how much carbon dioxide humans can emit safety. Currently, the going theory is that humans could emit anywhere from 100 billion tons to 500 billion tons of carbon before warming reached catastrophic levels.
“In my assessment,” he said, “it is not an overstatement to say that Donald Trump’s climate change views and policy proposals constitute an existential threat to this planet.”
If the U.S. dropped out of the agreement and continued with no climate policy, Hayhoe calculated that the U.S. would contribute .66 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. That would result in warming of 2.66 degrees Celsius, which some scientists consider a dangerous level of climate change.
You did not answer my question. Who are the researchers predicting a planet-ending calamity?
HT. Former head of NASA GISS, James ‘deathtrains’ Hansen. Leader of Potsdam Climate Institute and advisor to Pope Francis, Joachim ‘2C’ Schellnhuber. Or, try IPCC WG2 for many others.
Don’t reveal your (probably disingenuous) ignorance so easily.
We elected Trump because we do not believe that junk science that says manmade CO2 can cause problems. We elected Trump to stop this climate alarmism junk science and solutions that do nothing but cause us to spend more tax money for much worse than nothing in return.
Open this page of AR5 graphics and click on Figure 5:
These are the causes of global warming that the IPCC models are allowed to use. All the causes are anthropogenic except a minuscule bit of direct solar energy. So it is no wonder that only AGW can explain the warming, as claimed in Figure 6.
Natural variability is ruled out from the beginning. Like I said, ridiculous.
No natural variability is not ruled out.
Natural variability means UNFORCED INTERNAL VARIABILITY.
Virtually all models exhibit natural variability. the open questions are
1. Do they replicate these modes faithfully in amplitude and frequency?
2. Are there modes that are not represented.
No and yes.
The models exhibit minor unforced variability. Noise. That is not the issue. Models should be used to explore hypotheses, not to ignore them. The IPCC/CMIP constraints hardwire AGW.
Steven Mosher: Natural variability means UNFORCED INTERNAL VARIABILITY.
Natural variability means the variability unrelated to human causes.
So now you are introducing the possibility that human activity is influencing and confounding natural variability? Dude, this is hard enough already.
How can we possibly factor this when we can’t even know if the appropriate metric of planetary temperature is the ocean surface; the land surface; the land atmosphere measured at 1.5 meters with crappy thermometers in louvered boxes, the ocean atmospheric temperatures measured at whatever deck heights and whatever radiating containers stacked on deck to avoid the Suez tariff; satellite measurements of the lower troposphere; middle troposphere; upper troposphere…
The models indeed show some internal variability, even the mean:
and in the right locations, see Fig.2 of the Post. The purpose of the Post was not to trigger the discussion ( deja vu since xx years) IF the forcing has an effect on the GMST, fig. 5 of the post can nobody misunderstand. It’s some kind of frustrating to read allways the same ping-pong of the same persons who believe in steps, circles or unicorns. The goal of the post was to discuss the range of GMST impact due to CO2. I would be very glad to read some more contributions to the topic.
HNY by the way…
It has no impact on morning temps.
It might have a small impact on afternoon temps, but in the extratropics the upper limited based on surface data is less than 0.02F/W.
Virtually all models exhibit natural variability. the open questions are
1. Do they replicate these modes faithfully in amplitude and frequency? The answer is NO!
2. Are there modes that are not represented. The answer is YES!
They cannot correctly model something that they clearly do not understand.
Internal variability. Does some factor influence volcanic activity? Planets, place in the galaxy, cosmic rays, anything? From the article:
Volcano Activity Strengthening Around The World
If the climate is sufficiently chaotic then no forcing is needed to explain dec-cen or longer cycles of warming and cooling. Constant solar input is enough. This should be the first research question, not the last. Minor forcing, such as CO2 TCR, is irrelevant.
What is needed is an objective research program.
I fully embrace climate dynamics… spatio-temporal chaos. CO2 is not a minor forcing.
On what basis do you assert CO2 is a significant forcing?
The correlation between CO2 and temperature in the Berkeley data sets is .46. The data is water boarded with: Fit = alpha + beta * log( CO2 / 277.3 ) + gamma * Volcanic to yield the common graphic correlating temperature, CO2 and volcanoes.
Now, the captions advertise a “natural” log, you know, like y=1/x. Not so lucky, us. This is a common log with a weird scaling factor, multiplied by two unexplained degrees of freedom, alpha and beta. To this is added another unexplained factor, gamma, multiplied by volcanic.
Here are the values:
It is well known that there is an approximately logarithmic diminution in TRANSMISSION (1-absorption) with increasing concentrations of CO2. This is because CO2 is a great absorber and quickly extinguishes the available light in a jar.
We don’t know where we fall on this curve in the real world, and alpha, beta, and gamma are no help at all.
Lovejoy presents this view.
Fig.2: The spatial correlation of forcing and observed temperatures (GISS). ”
Perhaps this will work but you show a supposed correlation of temperature and forcing in the Indian Ocean, the Congo basin, the Amazon basin, a bit of the Australian Outback, some random patches in the southern portions of oceans…
Whither the forcing? What correlates with those places? If you say CO2, OCO will disagree. Water vapor? Maybe.
I calculated it based on the change in temp due to the change in forcing as the length of day changes in the extratropics.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #253 | Watts Up With That?
My problem with this and any other study that uses the GISS heavily corrupted data sets is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
The residuals after removing the forcing, solar, volcano- and also ENSO-events gives H = 1, which means that there still remains strong long-term persistence.
This is true when you only consider a short time period such as 150 years. If you consider a thousand years, or two or three or ten thousand years, there is no long-term persistence. The ice core data from the Antarctic and Greenland show cycles in the same bounds. A 150 year period at the end of the Roman or Medieval warm periods would show a decreasing long-term persistence. Short sighted analysis is worse than useless.
The Little Ice Age was a time with more ice extent. The Medieval Warm Period was a time with less ice extent.
It snowed more during the Medieval Warm Period and the more ice volume and weight naturally advanced and caused the Little Ice Age. It snowed less during the Little Ice Age and the ice on land naturally depleted and the less ice volume and weight naturally retreated and caused the warming into this Modern Warm Period. Ice advance and retreat causes temperature changes, it is not a result of temperature changes. Study the ice core data, the answers are recorded in the ice core histories.
Warm times, with low sea ice extent, such as now, cause more ocean effect and lake effect snowfall, watch the news stories about record breaking snowfall that is happening now. This is not record breaking snowfall, this is a repeat of the snowfall in the Roman and Medieval Warm times. It is snowing more due to the open Arctic, this is when ice on land is replenished, when oceans are thawed to provide moisture. This warm time is normal, natural and necessary, look in the ice core records.
I’m a bit late to this thread, but if the author could provide the source of the forcings I’d be very grateful. Especially for the aerosols, did he use AR5 or other series?
Alberto, the source was linked in the 1st sentence of the post: AR5