By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Dr Roy Spencer, in his formidable recent paper, has made perhaps the most comprehensive effort ever to evaluate all the available meteorological data and to derive therefrom an upper-bound estimate of <2.1 K equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS). His method, like all the best methods, is based more on observational than on numerical techniques.
He concludes that 2.1 K is an upper bound because climatology has not taken sufficient account of subsurface warming from below (Professor Viterito has long suspected subocean volcanism as a significant contributor to recent warming), and has also made insufficient correction for the urban heat-island effect. Here, I compare Dr Spencer’s result with two other available observational methods.
Observational method 1: prediction vs. outturn
IPCC (1990), an early attempt by the international scientific community at constraining ECS. estimated it as 3 [1.5, 4.5] K. The interval has changed little: IPCC (2021) gave 3 [2, 5] K. IPCC’s original prediction from 1990, together with observed temperature change since then, provides the basis for perhaps the simplest observational method of deriving ECS.
Anthropogenic emissions since 1990 have proven closer to IPCC’s then business-as-usual scenario A than to B-D: for CO2 accounts for two-thirds of our sins of emission, and from 1990-2025 the scenario B CO2 prediction was near-identical to IPCC’s prediction based on the assumption that there would be no emissions growth after 1990. Yet in reality there has been considerable emissions growth since 1990. Scenario A, then, is closest to real emissions.
In the third of a century since 1990, the 0.3 K decade–1 midrange medium-term warming (10% of 3 K midrange ECS) predicted in scenario Ahas proven excessive by a factor 2. Observed warming from 1990-2022 was only 0.14 K decade–1 using Roy Spencer’s UAH database. On the Scenario A assumption that ECS is ten times the decadal warming rate, observationally-derived midrange ECS is just 1.4 K. Let us verify that result another way.
Observational method 2: the energy-budget method
The energy-budget method (Gregory 2004) is another simple observational method, which, in paper after paper (including Lewis & Curry 2018, cited by Roy Spencer), has produced lower ECS estimates than the models. The method permits direct derivation of ECS, subject to uncertainties in five initial conditions, whose midrange intervals are illustratively as follows:
Anthropogenic fraction M of industrial-era warming: Wu et al. (2019, table 2) give surface air temperature trends for eight periods of varying length from 1900-2013 and the anthropogenic CO2-equivalent and natural contributions summing thereto for each period. Apportionment by period length suggests M is equal to 73.5% of industrial-era warming. Here, the illustrative midrange interval of M is taken as 85% [70%, 100%].
Industrial-era observed transient warming ΔTEB, taken as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies since 1850, is 1.04 K (HadCRUT5; cf. 0.93 K to 2020 in HadCRUT4). However, IPCC (2021, p. 7-9) gives 1.27 K. Here, the midrange interval of ΔTEB is taken as 1.1 [0.93, 1.27] K.
Doubled-CO2-equivalent anthropogenic forcing ΔQ1 is 3.93 W m–2 (IPCC, 2021 p. 7-7), cf. CMIP5 3.45 W m–2 in Andrews 2012; CMIP6 3.52 W m–2 in Zelinka et al. 2020). Here, the midrange interval is taken as 3.69 [3.45, 3.93] W m–2.
Anthropogenic net forcing ΔQEB to 2019was 2.84 W m–2 (IPCC 2021, table AIII.3). Adding 0.045 W m–2 yr–1 for each of the three years 2020-2022 (based on the recent near-linear trend in Butler & Montzka 2020) yields 3 W m–2 anthropogenic forcing ΔQEB to 2022. However, ΔQEB becomes 3.4 W m–2 after adding 0.4 W m–2 (e.g. Seifert et al. 2015, Stevens 2015, Fiedler et al. 2017, Lewis & Curry 2018, Sato et al. 2018, Dittus et al. 2020) for overstated negative aerosol forcing in GCMs. Here, the midrange interval is taken as 3.4 [3.2, 3.6] W m–2.
Earth energy imbalance ΔNEB is 0.79 W m–2 (IPCC 2021, p. 7-6, the mean of 0.87 W m–2 (von Schuckmann et al. 2020) and 0.71 W m–2 (Raghuraman et al. 2021). The interval of midrange ΔNEB is thus 0.79 [0.71, 0.87] W m–2.
The following equation gives midrange energy-budget ECS (ΔE1)EB. Monte Carlo simulation (109 trials) gives the 2σ interval of midrange ECS as 1.3 [1.0, 1.7] K (Fig. 2), cohering with the observational 1.4 ECS derived earlier, but well below the hitherto-projected 3 K.
Eq. (1) assumes that the realized fraction of observed industrial-era warming was driven by the realized forcing (i.e., the difference between the total period anthropogenic forcing and the satellite-measured Earth energy imbalance). Therefore, ECS is simply the product of the anthropogenic fraction of observed warming and the ratio of the doubled-CO2 forcing to the realized industrial-era forcing. By this method, midrange ECS proves to be 1.3 K, cohering nicely with the 1.4 K derived from the earlier observational method.
To verify this result, a billion-trial Monte Carlo simulation was conducted. It generated the expected somewhat right-skewed normal distribution, yielding midrange ECS on the interval 1.3 [1.0, 1.7] K. Note that the Monte Carlo distribution is for midrange ECS only. The upper bound may be as much as the 2.1 K suggested in Roy Spencer’s paper.
The value of simple analyses such as these lies precisely in their simplicity. Very nearly all media have now capitulated to the climate narrative, not least for fear of the Rufmord or reputational assassination to which all of us who have dared to raise “Please, sir” scientific questions about that narrative have been relentlessly subjected.
These simple, observational methods, particularly the first, are just about comprehensible even to the 97% of the population who tremble at the sight of even the simplest equation. The potential influence of these simple methods on the debate becomes still more compelling if they are combined with a simple benefit-cost analysis.
Risk vs. reward
For some years, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which continues to produce solid research that is meticulously unreported in the media, has been trying to find out from the British Government’s notionally “independent” Climate Change Committee just how little global warming net zero emissions would bring about by 2050, and at just how much cost. The Committee has ducked and dived and wriggled, but has not produced definitive answers.
However, the British grid authority has calculated that just the capital cost of reconfiguring the grid for net zero would cost $4 trillion by 2050; but grid emissions account for only one-fifth of total UK emissions, and operating costs (opex) are generally at least twice the capital expenditure (capex). Just ask the Germans, who in a recent cold spell (blamed, of course, on global warming) have been paying $1.5 billion a week over the odds just to keep the lights on. In Britain, where coal-fired power used to cost $30 per MWh, the grid authority recently had to pay up to $11,500 per MWh at times of peak demand, and these multi-thousand-dollar rates are becoming more and more frequent as the contribution of thermal energy from coal and gas to the grid is destroyed by Government fiat, leaving the grid vulnerable to collapse.
Extrapolating the Grid’s figures to the whole energy sector, the capex cost of British net zero will be $20 trillion, five times the capex for reconfiguring the grid, while opex will be at least $40 trillion; total cost at least $60 trillion, which, at today’s prices, would represent three-quarters of the next 30 years’ total UK GDP.
Now let us assess how much global warming that massive expenditure on British net zero would prevent. In the past 30 years, the world’s emissions have driven a near-linear forcing of 1 Watt per square meter. If the whole world (let’s pretend) were to go to net zero emissions in a straight line, decrementing global emissions by 1/30th of the emissions in 2020 in each year to 2050, just over half a Watt per square meter of what would otherwise have been the next Watt per square meter of anthropogenic forcing would be abated.
Now, since one unit of straight-line forcing in the past three decades caused 0.4 K global warming, abating half the next unit of forcing over the next 3 decades would prevent just 0.2 K of the next 0.4 K warming, of which the British share would be 0.002 K. Yes, folks, one five-hundredth of a degree. At a cost of $60 trillion.
On that basis, each $1 billion that Britain and the world spends on chasing after net zero will prevent just one thirty-millionth of a degree of warming that would otherwise have occurred.
Value for money it isn’t. It is such simple but robust risk-reward calculations as these, as they become better known, that will deservedly kill the global warming narrative stone-dead.
Ja. Ja.
As I was saying……
It is the earth itself, stupid!? | Bread on the water
“ It is therefore impossible to say that the heat that earth produces itself is much smaller than the heat of that 0.01% greenhouse gas that was added to the atmosphere.”
Your conclusion is claptrap.
There is no evidence that the Earth’s core heat that reaches the surface has changed over time, and therefore caused global warming or global cooling.
These is strong evidence that the 50% rise of CO2 since 1850 was one cause of global warming, particularly after 1975. when CO2 emissions were fastest.
No, Richard. I proved that the CO2 is a misnomer.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/
Up until now, nobody has proved to me that my basic reasoning and calculations are wrong….
It’s over 10y I’ve been seeing your nonsense here. I stopped looking a long time ago.
Eisshh…true. It was a long time. But it IS a difficult subject. Took me a long time to learn from all of you. Thx. to all here. We are all teachers and pupils to each other. Don’t stop looking at each other’s work but bring your critique on the work. Not your ad hominem.
Are you the “SO2 Guy”
You never respond to my points about SO2 and temperature do not move in the “proper directions” often
You claim rising SO2 levels should cause global cooling
And you claim declining SO2 levels should cause global warming.
I present periods of 5 years or more when those relationships did not happen
You ignore me
(1) SO2 rising from 1940 to 1975
Global average temperature claimed to be steady, not falling
(current NAS-GISS data)
STRIKE 1
(2) SO2 levels rising from 1975 to 1980
Global average temperature rising
STRIKE 2
(3) SO2 levels falling from 2015 through 2022
Global average temperature steady (UAH data)
STRIKE 3
That’s THREE STRIKES and you’re OUT Pool !
Sorry Richard. You have me confused now with someone else. His name is Burl Henry. Or Henry Burl. I cannot remember, exactly. I think all small trace gasses, including CO2, have nothing much to do with global temperature or climate. There is no mass of it in the atmosphere so it cannot change the temperature of the atmosphere. I already explained that you. SO2 could have an effect by destroying forest (acid rain) and CO2 could have an effect by creating more forest/greenery. In both cases it would affect earth’s albedo.
By the way, you are now 39 strikes down, on your first comment on my first submitted comment. Makes you think, does it not?
“”These is strong evidence that the 50% rise of CO2 since 1850 was one cause of global warming, particularly after 1975. when CO2 emissions were fastest.”
There is no evidence for that. The rise of CO2 and global temperatures could just be a coincidence, one not related to the other.
Temperatures rose as much and got just as warm from 1910 to 1940 as they did from the 1970’s to today, but there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere then than there is now. CO2 does not explain the temperature rise from 1910 to 1940.
I won’t say CO2 does not cause warming, but the degree to which it does is certainly in question, and claiming any percentage is due to CO2, given the lack of knowledge we have now, is just guessing.
The claimed temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 is based on questionable non-global data, especially before 1920.
Even if the 1910 to 1940 temperature did rise as claimed, it was not as much as the 1975 to 2015 rise,
So what does 1910 to 1940 prove?
We already knew temperature does change from 100% natural causes, as it has for the past 4.5 billion years before 1850.
We also know measurement errors pre-1940 were more likely to affect 1910 to 1940 than to affect post-1979 weather satellite temperature data.
The evidence that CO2 is involved in the post 1975-warming:
Lab experiments showing CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas.
Estimates and measurements showing CO2 has increased almost 50% since 1850.
Knowledge that there is a water vapor positive feedback, based on warming of the troposphere from any cause.
Increased measured downwelling infrared radiation
The timing and pattern of warming since 1975, include the lack of warming in Antarctica.
The lack of alternative natural cause explanations that would eliminate CO2 as a potential cause.
We know for sure that CO2 caused from zero to 100% of the global warming since 1975.
Zero is very unlikely, and 100% is very unlikely.
You can pick your own percentage.
i lick “no one knows”
There is an easy way to resolve this. Use the same locations for both periods. It won’t eliminate all the differences but will remove the complaint that coverage wasn’t as great in the earlier period.
Richard
It seems you are down 20 thumps.
Why don’t you provide a formulated scientific comment on my post?
Or ask a friend to comment?
There must be someone here to prove me wrong?
Oops. It is now -22
Minus 23.
That is an amazing score here. From whichever side you look at it.
Richard says:”Lab experiments showing CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas.”
Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment showed the opposite. Please provide links to these “lab experiments” you talk of.
If you “click no one knows” then why say that the rise in CO2 was one cause of global warming? You appear to know.
lab infrared gas spectroscopy since the ate 1800s. You must have been distracted.
The global coverage of the post 1940 data is only marginally better than the pre-1940 data.
The evidence to support the theory that water vapor provides a positive feedback is mostly imaginary.
We don’t know what caused the Little Ice Age and what caused the world to warm out of it. What we do know is that it couldn’t have been CO2.
Your claim that since we don’t know what else might have caused warming, proves that it must have been CO2 is as unscientific as the rest of the claptrap that passes itself off as climate science.
I don’t trust any global average temperature data before UAH in 1979. But I do recognize there was significant warming since the 1690s in the Central England Temperature data (three weather stations), supported by many local temperature proxies. There is no evidence the average temperature had cooled since the 1690s. That leaves warming as the only other choice.
There is strong evidence that the global average temperature increased since 1975 and CO2 rose rapidly in that period too. The CO2 rise will impede Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount. Therefore, it is logical to assume CO2 is one of the causes of the post-1975 warming.
There is no known explanation of that warming from 100% natural causes, to refute the CO2 assumption.
In fact, the +0.7 degree C. temperature rise from 1975 to 2015 would be unusually large, and fast, for a 100% natural climate change.
,
Any mix of natural and manmade causes of warming from 1975 to 2015 is possible, but 100% natural causes or 100% CO2 causes, are both unlikely.
How well do UAH data correlate with long-term thermometer data since 1979? (You should be able to answer that if you have formed an opinion on the unreliability of thermometer measurements.) If there is good correlation, that should give you confidence in the pre-1979 data.
Of course, if the data does not fit the narrative, it is obviously defective. It just needs “correcting” to fit what all single variable climate models tell us is driving climate.
The narrative is CAGW
There are no data to support CAGW
There are data to support AGW
The amount of AGW is not known with any precision, other than observing that it has been harmless, because global warming since 1975 has been harmless.
I fully agree Richard, see my previous post in this Blog, AGW is relatively weak and harmless, since any warmth should be beneficial to us all. CO2 grown now is just lucky for us and the planet. Why are humans so ignorant of the basic facts of science that they believe all the doomsday cult rubbish passing as climate/ environment fact these days. Sometimes I wonder about the collective sanity of the human race!
“Increased measured downwelling infrared radiation”
Nobody has measured any such thing, at ambient temperature, at night. That’s because the ground is warmer than the air, so energy flows upward, not downward.
(Radiation goes in all directions, but power doesn’t)
The 1930s still have the high temperature records, though some high temperature records go back to the 1880s.
US states have more TMAX temperature records in the 1930s than in any other decade, but the US average temperature and global average temperature have been “adjusted”.by smarmy goobermint bureaucrats.
But TMAX records is not very relevant for greenhouse warming \Because greenhouse warming mainly affects TMIN records.
As you well know Tom, given the near saturation of CO2 above say 150ppm, the early 20th C temperature rise to 1945 could have been partially caused by CO2. However, the later temp rise from 1975 had to be less affected by CO2 due to increased saturation, and of course the temp fall from 1945-1975 is not explained by the increasing CO2. So overall, this means that CO2 cannot be controlling climate temperature in general.
Thus, the ECS has to be very low – below 1C and is relatively negligible compared to whatever is responsible for temperature changes, including of course the Sun! It is certainly time this whole business of ECS was sorted, then you can tell the IPCC to shove it right where it belongs, and they can follow.
These is strong evidence that the 50% rise of CO2 since 1850 was one cause of global warming,
I read this a lot and but I still have yet to see any evidence, let alone strong evidence.
What is the evidence you speak of?
”Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,”
Ok, so ”scientific” evidence (according to the above) might be the correlation of rising co2 and warming right?
But what does evidence really mean?
”evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.Or…. ”What is the best definition of evidence?
: something that furnishes proof ”
Or…..”What is the meaning of scientific evidence?
……In general, scientific evidence are the results of scientific tests used to prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.
I ask again, what is the evidence?
That is probably a fair statement. But that tells us nothing.
I listed the evidence that CO2 was involved in a prior comment. Mainly for the 1975 to 2022 period. CO2 did not rise much pre-1975.
One thirty-millionth of a degree C for every $1 billion spent chasing net zero.
Thanks, Christopher. That’ll be easy to remember when we’re arguing with the zeroes pushing net zero.
Maybe we should call the one thirty-millionth of a degree C a net zilch temperature change from net zero.
Regards,
Bob
Don’t forget that is based on the generous and unfounded assumption that all recent warming is “driven” by CO2, which is an unsupported assumption.
Reality is you won’t “prevent” ANY warming no matter how much you “spend.”
No warming in the past 8 years per UAH data.
Monckton usually mentions that in every article.
He makes up for everyone else, who ignores it.
I doubt if an eight-year pause can be used to predict the future climate. But it is more proof that CO2 is not the climate control knob:
“The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder.”
R. Greene, 1997
(Nobel Prize pending).
“The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder.”
Yeah, that pretty much sums up 40y and trillions of dollars in research spending.
And it only took me one hour after I began studying climate science in 1997. I also said: “100-year climate predictions are BS”, but no Nobel Prize for that.
Many people are biased and forgot the good news coming from Nut Zero:
During future grid blackouts caused by Nut Zero:
(1) Power plants will temporarily have zero CO2 emissions
(2) Electricity costs will decline by 100%
(3) The use of candles will be very romantic for the ladies,
unless they start shivering.
Bob Tisdale is most kind. It is indeed scandalous that there is so little bang for so many millions of bucks.
The ones making the money get bangs. The rest of us get to watch.
The goal of Nut Zero, like many other leftist plans and decisions, is really to ruin the economy, as a way to promote fundamental transformation to Marxism. So there is a bang for the buck for the leftists: Money and Power.
To implement Marxism, capitalism (actually socialism, these days) must be forced to fail. Only then does Marxism seem to be a better alternative (at least to some deluded leftist people).
Nut Zero is designed to fail, in my opinion. It obviously will fail.
The future (in a few years), Nut Zero failure will be spun by leftists as a new climate emergency. To be “fought” with more government power and mandates for the private sector.
Anything that runs counter to the faith and the narrative is…
“…meticulously unreported in the media”
The Climate Howlers and their media lapdogs do not control the actual weather and climate. We Climate Realists “own those”.
They have 47 years of always wrong predictions of climate doom
Their Fantasyland.
We have 47 years of very pleasant global warming since 1975.
Our Realityland
I prefer to live in reality.
Well Chris, what can I say? Admirable stuff, but remember the Late Sir Roger Scruton’s comment:
Climate Change uses exactly the same AgitProp techniques as all the other Kremlin sponsored Marxist movements, the same false logic, the same moral virtue that gives the right to cancel the opposition, and the same useful idiots propagating it in the sure and certain knowledge they will be exempt from the damage they are causing.
The Age of Aquarius never happened, we are stuck with touchy-feely Cancer, where what people think and feel, no matter how deluded, is more important than ‘whatever is the case’ (as Wittgenstein said).
Until those people die by their own irrationality and Darwin takes over, there is little we can do, and its a surety that they will take most of us down with them. Like Keynes markets, climate change Believers can remain irrational longer than their nations can remain solvent.
In short we are cattled
In the meantime, there are still 40 year old vintage brandies to be druink after the Stilton, Port and Grapes, and I wish you an admirably stupefied Christmas.
Yup.
I’ve got he Stilton and the grapes, I don’t ‘do’ port any more
We need a New Darwin or especially, a one that can take over his work from when he died
And that was, accordinging to the man himself vastly more important than anything he’d done before:
He was writing a new book and it was going to be all about earthworms
” I don’t ‘do’ port any more”
Is that a sugar thing, or an alcohol thing, or even both?
I bought a strativarius violin at a pawn shop.
My violin teacher claims it’s a fake.
If it is, I’m out $65.
ha ha
I have a ‘74 Stratocaster and a ‘79 Black Beauty
Never mind earthworms….nematodes are where its at.
Peta,
Those with really logical minds volunteer to avoid harms, based on measurement and observation.
My wife for 58 years so far, and I, have never ever taken illegal drugs, not even a snort of marijuana. I gave up not just port, but all alcohol drinks in 1983. Never ever engaged in sex with disease potential, like aids. Don’t gamble apart from the trade Melbourne Cup tiny water
Both of us sadly followed medical pressure and had Covid vaccines, but no more because finally some risks are being made public. Working on giving up the high sugar traditional Christmas pavlova dessert.
Is life boring? To the contrary, enjoyment is amplified by having clear minds to fully appreciate it. Wake up, give up and smell the roses.
Once when I was attending a Halloween party, I discovered that everyone was asleep on the living room floor. I had no one to talk to and I was hungry. I saw a plate of brownies on a table along with some other food. I sampled the brownies and they weren’t half bad. Before I knew it, I had eaten about half the platter. It was about this time that the hostess woke up and wandered out to where I was. She became very upset because they were magic brownies and I had eaten so many that she was afraid that I was going to need medical attention. As it turned out, the only thing the brownies did was to curb my appetite. Otherwise they had absolutely no effect on me. While I may have had an innate immunity to the effect, I’ve often wondered how many people who smoke grass are actually experiencing a placebo effect, and acting like they think they should be when smoking grass.
Leo, are you suggesting there is a Marxist gene that will disappear? Marx didn’t invent social hierarchy.
Regardless, I heartily join you in the spirit of the season.
I was not familiar with you quote. It is very close to the truth. Politicians, at least in the U.S., seldom vote for what is best for the little guy. Too entrenched in the social life of the elites. They need to move Washington, D.C. to somewhere in the middle of the country. Can you imagine the caterwauling?
Fargo, ND.
Mr Smith should never give up. Magna est veritas, et praevalet: Great is truth, and mighty above all things.
That Observational method 2: the energy-budget method chart doesn’t look like a straight line to me.
More like the Locus of a wheel going up a hill, therefore two things are happening, with a lot of noise thrown in just to confuse the issue
Ben Vorlich is not, perhaps, familiar with the method of Monte Carlo simulation, which tends to generate a normal or Gaussian distribution after a sufficient number of trials. The peak of the quasi-sinusoidal distribution (not a straight line) is at 1.3 K ECS, and it is 95% certain that midrange ECS is somewhere between 1 and 1.7 K.
ECS of 1.3 K would imply that 1/3 of the entire GHE is caused by CO₂, which is higher than any official estimate.
There is fierce “global warming” occurring across North America right now. Most “global warming” is occurring on land north of 40N during winter when conditions are freezing. Snow is the dominant cause of global warming because it is increasing.
Take a look at NASA’s attached temperature anomaly for 2021. Arctic Ocean, Hudson Bay and Greenland are red hot. Greenland has warmed almost 10C in January over the past 70 years; from a low of -30C to an extraordinarily scary -20C. The ice mass is gaining elevation at 17mm/year. This is what “global warming” looks like.
All the snow that will fall across USA over the next few days is presently warming the land surface by reducing the rate of heat loss, radiating at 185W/m^2 rather than clear sky of 280W/m^2. A warming of almost 100W/m^2 compared with clear sky.
Anyone thinking that CO2 has anything to do with Earth’s energy balance has been duped. It is trite nonsense.
What is now being observed and labelled “global warming” has occurred 4 times over the last 500k years in identical timing of Earth’s orbital precession. History is repeating. The termination of the modern interglacial has been in progress for about 1000 years.
You have been duped by the use of temperature anomalies. Look at the actual temperature and you see the greater temperature changes are occurring below freezing.
Heat_Ice_Stores.pdf
The ice core reconstructions show temperature change LEADING CO2 change with an 800 year lag, give or take, up AND down.
At every inflection point where temperatures change from cooling to warming or vice-versa, temperature and CO2 are moving in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, for hundreds of years. AKA REVERSE CORRELATION, which drives the proverbial stake through the heart of any notion of CO2 having an “effect” on temperature. Combine that with the “inconvenient” fact that temperatures always start WARMING when CO2 is FALLING and near its LOWEST concentration, and temperatures always start COOLING when CO2 is RISING and near its HIGHEST concentration, and any notion of CO2 “driven” anything is clearly nonsense.
Duped, indeed.
Irrelevant
For natural climate change, CO2 levels are a RESULT of climate changes
For manmade climate change, CO2 is a CAUSE of climate changes
These are two different processes that happen at the time.
Climate change is the NET RESULT of a variety of different natural and manmade causes of climate change.
You are conflating two different aspects of climate change.
That makes you ineffective in refuting CAGW scaremongering.
And vulnerable to fact checkers.
Please stop doing that.
“…vulnerable to fact checkers”
Doesn’t matter, since the “fact checkers” are bold faced liars who work for the Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
How can there be man made climate change dependent on CO2 when there’s long periods of flat or declining temperatures inspite of almost constantly rising CO2 levels?
Manmade CO2 is one of many climate change variables
Actual climate change is the net result of all natural and manade climate change variables
CO2 is obvious not a “climate control knob”.
Here’s my personal list:
The following variables
are likely to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and
orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation
Including ENSO and others
3) Solar activity and irradiance,
including clouds, volcanic and manmade aerosols, plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extraterrestrial dust
4) Greenhouse gas emissions
5) Land use changes
(cities growing, logging, crop irrigation, etc.)
6) Unknown causes of variations of a
complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and
manmade catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors
(unintentional or deliberate)
9) Interactions and feedbacks,
involving two or more variables.
“Climate change is the NET RESULT of a variety of different natural and manmade causes of climate change.”
Uhuh so according to this statement of yours, climate change is the cause of climate change.
Are you always this confused?
Are you always this stup-id and in-sulting?
You know I am referring to climate change variables and I provided my personal list in a prior comment.
What part of my post is stup-id and in-sulting?
You wrote that “climate change is the cause of climate change.”
So you’re now amending your previous post to read “climate change variables” are the cause of “climate change” ?
Either statement make no sense.
Given that man has no control over
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation
3) Solar activity and irradiance, including clouds, volcanic aerosols, plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extraterrestrial dust
4) Greenhouse gas emissions from plants and animals living in the wild.
6) Unknown causes of variations of a complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors
9) Interactions and feedbacks
it’s pointless including them.
Perhaps you’d suggest there be no more space exploration including dropping off satelites and space-stations.
So all you have left is
5) Land use changes (cities growing, logging, crop irrigation, etc.)
Do tell how man stops cities growing when there is a net gain of over 60 million every year.
Why would man stop logging when they need the materials?
Why would man stop crop irrigation when it’s needed to feed the world?
– manmade aerosols
so all cars, airplanes, power plants, and industrial processes including the manufacture of EVs, solar panels and wind turbines that produce particles that can collect in the atmosphere must all be outlawed?
– manmade catastrophes
Such as wars must immediately cease ?
Because all these things might affect the weather?
And before you jump in and say climate and weather are two different beasts, you can’t have climate without weather.
So what you propose is man must immediately return to living in caves and only eat each other. They must not eat plants and bugs because doing so would upset the natural world.
Where I come from the consensus from the climate activists on the invented phrase “climate change” stems from manmade pollution.
Perhaps you’d have been better saying
” “Climate change” is the result of all the manmade pollution variables.”
Or you can accept that all 8 billion of us are only occupying the planet for a brief moment in time and all should be making the best of our lives and must adapt to any environment changes – as the everything in the natural world does.
Get over yourself and realise that this tiny planet called Earth will continue to be controlled by Nature.
Who knows when the next ball of fire from outer space will hit the planet and cause horrific devastation like has occurred in the past.
Richard, please re-examine statements 1 & 2 – they’re logically inconsistent.
“Anyone thinking that CO2 has anything to do with Earth’s energy balance has been duped. It is trite nonsense.”
Anyone who makes a statement that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. and is not part of the greenhouse effect, is spouting nonsense.
CO2 is definitely a radiative gas. The greenhouse effect is something different and you are simply repeating alarmist propaganda. It makes you very ineffective at understanding the actual science.
The warming/cooling effects of radiative gases is an ever changing combination of multiple interacting processes. The science is difficult but claiming it is always some magical warming agent is “spouting nonsense”.
The science is simple (greenhouse gases impede Earth;s ability to cool itself with upwelling infrared radiation) and I estimate that at least 99.9% of scientists in the world recognize the existence of a greenhouse effect. You apparently belong in the 0.1% — the mental cases.
You have no ability to analyse data. You have been duped bu the use of anomalies. Take a close look at where the land is warming the most. On Greenland in January. This is a 2000m thick ice block. “Greenhouses gasses” give me a break.
Hook line and sinker comes to mind.
CO2 is most effective as a greenhouse gas when there is less” competition” from water vapor. The least competition is in high latitudes, during the colder months or the year, and for TMIN. That is the expected pattern and timing of greenhouse gas warming.
Antarctica is an exception, because of the temperature inversion there.
Do you understand that CO2 molecules in our atmosphere radiate energy to space? How does that “impede Earth;s ability to cool itself“?
Are you aware ~99.95% of the IR energy radiated from the surface near the 15 mm frequency band is completely absorbed? And, absorbed within 10 meters? Do you really believe .05% more is a big problem?
Richard – nearly all land north of 40N today is covered in snow today. 60% of the solar EMR arriving at the surface will not be thermalised. It is unused and has no role in heating. 60% is a big number even when the sunlight is low.
Now snow extent is gradually increasing so less EMR is being thermalised.
Can you show me how this effect is catered for in the “greenhouse effect” that is supposed to control earth’s energy balance. The albedo of the surface is obviously changing. What role did CO2 play in this?
You have been duped into looking at meaningless trivia. CO2 has absolutely no involvement in earth’s energy balance – it makes negligible contribution to atmospheric mass or buoyancy of water vapour.
“CO2 has absolutely no involvement in earth’s energy balance”
You are a crack-pot
CO2 molecules deflect infrared radiation of certain wavelengths in all directions. That effect impedes upwelling infrared radiation originally heading toward the infinite heat sink of outer space, from the Earth trying to cool itself.
Sorry Richard, but anyone who thinks CO2 “deflects” IR energy is clueless of the basic science involved. CO2 does impede energy from reaching space (via absorption/reemission), but as I told you, it already is doing that for all the energy available to it. How do you impede more than ALL?
If the science is simple then why are there at least three different versions of how CO2 causes warming?
These are ones I glean.
At the temperature and pressures of the atmosphere CO2 has no capacity to do what is claimed by people such as yourself.
Myself and an estimated 99.9% of the scientists on this planet.
In which laboratories did the thousands of scientists observe the simple science of the greenhouse effect taking place?
These massive labs would naturally contain all the elements of Earth’s weather system, It’s impossible to carry out such experiments without each and every one of them.
There are many scientists in my country so I’d love to visit one or two of their labs to witness their observations for myself.
The “greenhouse effect” has no impact on Earth’s energy balance. Ice forming in the atmosphere occurs at 240K over the average land altitude of 800m. The OLR is 185W/m^2 for any atmosphere with more than 1mm TPW over land at 800m elevation. A little more if near sea level and less as the altitude increases.
The idea that gasses control Earth’s energy balance is just rubbish. The ice in the atmosphere, on the water surface and land surface controls Earth’s energy balance. All the energy balance processes occur at precise temperatures relative to the ground level pressure.
Richard Greene – you have been duped. Thinking a minute trace gas could make the slightest difference. Most “global warming” is occurring on land north of 40N in winter when it is freezing. That is because snow fall is increasing.
All that snow covering land north of 40N is absorbing very little of the incoming solar EMR. How is that snow on the ground a “greenhouse gas”?
“…..has occurred 4 times over the last 500k years” ???? Warming and cooling cycles over the last 10k years number about a dozen….the cycles are not precise clockwork but it is now time for a cooling back towards the Little Ice Age temps if the cycle repeats yet again. The villains are the scientists and pols who want the AGW story to be true or at least believed because it means money and power to them.
Thank you Monckton of Brenchley!
Let’s propose an even simpler analysis based on observations, as widely claimed.
Let’s assume the global average surface temperature is the measure of interest, as claimed.
Let’s say there has been 1C of net warming from 1880 to 2021. 142 years.
Let’s observe from the GFS/CFSR reanalysis data since 1979 that the 2-meter global average temperature warms and cools about 3.8C each year. (Eyeballed from the graph here. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/ )
(And a very appreciative hat tip to Javier Vinós in his book
Climate of the Past, Present and Future A Scientific Debate, 2nd ed. Figure 10.2.
https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Vinos-CPPF2022.pdf )
Let’s take the position that both the observed 3.8C annual warming and the observed 3.8C annual cooling are self-evidently natural.
142 years * 3.8C of warming = 540C
How much cooling? 540C less 1C = 539C
Over this period, the upper bound of the human influence through emission of GHGs, or from any human cause, is to have contributed to the warming or inhibited the cooling by about 1 part in 540. Too small to have ANY confidence in having isolated a cause for attribution.
So let’s get back to the business of reliable, affordable energy supply and snap out of the fashionable illusions about human-driven climate change and the pointless proposals to “fight” it.
Complete nonsense.
Your 1 part in 540 is claptrap.
Funny actually.
A hemisphere has about a 7 degree F. temperature range in a year — coldest in the winter and warmest in the summer. (January and July). Hemisphere seasonal variations are not full year global averages.
In addition, the N.H. averages about 15 degrees C. because it has more land and the S.H. averages about 13 degrees C. because it has more water. One hemisphere’s data are not a global average of both m hemispheres.
The warming since 1950 has a variety of natural and manmade causes.
No one knows what each variable actually did. There is strong evidence that CO2 is one of the causes of global warming since 1975. That’s all we know.
“Your 1 part in 540 is claptrap.”
No. It simply follows the claims and the references and the math. If you think it’s funny, fine. I think the attribution to CO2 is absurdly off the mark too for fundamental reasons I lay out in this recent comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/20/climate-sensitivity-from-1970-2021-warming-estimates/#comment-3653611
I know perfectly well about the hemispheres, as both references I linked to in this present comment make it clear. The asymmetric warming and cooling of NH and SH gives the resulting ~3.8C cycle on a global basis.
The whole point of my comment was to pose an exercise as an illustration of the unsoundness of the claimed attribution.
There is a seasonal CO2 cycle too, as plants, mainly in the NH, grow and later decay. A large carbon cycle.
But the +2.5 ppm net global average annual CO2 increase is not affected by seasonal CO2 variations during every year.
The seasonal temperature changes in each hemisphere are just as meaningless for the global average temperature.
What makes the estimated global average 2m air temperature warm and then cool over the year, as reported here using daily values? https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Let’s pose an alternate exercise: Take the UAH linear trend over about the same period of time as this reanalysis. The overall warming trend globally is reported to be 0.13C per decade, or 0.013C per year. An annual temperature change of 0.013 C is ~one part in 292 of the ~3.8C change in both the warming and cooling phases. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that the one part can be reliably isolated for attribution by any means we have available to us, when the 291 parts are natural.
Our differences arise from the framing of the issue. Perhaps you see the greenhouse gas “forcing” as compelling, and the de-seasonalized temperature anomalies rather than the actual temperatures as more meaningful. I view the attribution problem differently, as you can tell. We can agree to disagree for now on the attribution problem. We agree on the bottom line about policy.
What warming since 1950s?
Temperatures were starting to decline in the 1970s and scientists were warning the world of the coming ICE age .
So many scientists and commentators refuse to accept that the three climate optimums since the end of the major ice age only 12 thousand years ago were all warmer than present .
CO2 does warm the world but the effects are logarithmic and the atmosphere is near to saturation.
The threat of Climate Change is being used by politicians to gain control ,and take the world down a rabbit hole .
When are we going to see some common sense take over the world to consentrate on what really matters .
Billions and trillions are being wasted to go NUT zero to achieve absolutely ZERO.
“What warming since 1950s?”
Dr, Spencer provides the UAH temperature charts in the next article. It shows global warming from 1979 to about 2015. And a flat trend from 2015.
“The threat of Climate Change is being used by politicians to gain control ,and take the world down a rabbit hole”
Exactly right. I think the “rabbit hole” is Marxism.
I forgot to include the link:
UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2022: +0.17 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)
“There is strong evidence that CO2 is one of the causes of global warming since 1975. ”
Now there is a big stinking pile of claptrap if there ever was one
Was all the extra CO2 that was being pumped into the air during WW2, the reconstruction, the big expansion of cars, motorways and population during 1940-1975, during a prolonged cooling of the world, somehow magically different than the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere during 1975-2000 that seemed to have a positive effect on temperatures, or different that the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere at the greatest levels of all time during 2000-2022 that seemed to be mostly ignored by temperatures?
“Now there is a big stinking pile of claptrap if there ever was one”
I love people who talk like me !
CO2 is one of many climate change variables.
The periods with rising manmade CO2 without rising temperatures, are proof CO2 is not a “climate control knob” as those deluded “Climate Howlers” believe.
Lord Monckton, I tried picking the “worst” numbers in the ranges you provided, to try determine the warm bound of the Monte Carlo distribution:
1 x 1.27 x 3.93 / (3.2 – 0.87) = 2.14 (ECS)
Close to Dr. Spencer’s upper bound estimate of 2.1C / doubling.
Looks like all the ducks are lining up in a row.
Yes, but the acid test is can you get it on the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBC etc?
There’s plenty of uncertainty/doubt; AGW is holed like a zombie collander. The media – and it’s recently assembled, so-called, fact-checking wing – pronounce on truth and censor dissent via big tech.
Truth and fact is simply not enough anymore.
Leftist media does fact choking, not fact checking.
The comment was made on an Australian TV channel last night that the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) covers the full range of opinion from hard left to centre left. Spot on.
Three conclusions are “allowed”
The climate can only get worse
CAGW is coming “in ten years” (and always will be, ha ha )
CAGW will be worse than we thought
This would be funny if only heard in the third grade.
It’s not funny coming from goobermint bureaucrat “scientists” paid to say and predict that.
In response to Eric Worrall, I very much like it when people do proper checking of this kind. Eric’s calculation accords with the upper bound of the Monte Carlo distribution shown in the head posting. One word of caution, though: the intervals on the underlying data were chosen so as to indicate the midrange interval only. Therefore, it remains theoretically possible that there will be more than 2.1 K warming per CO2 doubling, but that outturn becomes less and less likely the longer global temperature fails to rise at anything like the originally-predicted rate.
This s a good article as was Roy Spencers, even though the world does not need any more estimates of ECS. At least we got two reasonable estimates for a change. Tthe right answer is no one knows the ECS for CO2.
According to the IPCC, ECS takes 200 to 400 years. Better to consider their TCS wild guess for 70 years in the future. And use the RCP 4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario. The resulting TCS, using the same models (as determined by Zeke H.) is about half the ECS number, and similar to actual global warming in the 1975 to 2015 period. A more of the same extrapolation that could have been done on the back of an envelope. Based on climate history, more of the same climate predictions are usually wrong, just like every other long term climate prediction.
The IPCC ECS is selected to scare people. Actual climate change i irrelevant. Accuracy of computer game predictions is irrelevant. This is leftist politics — scaremongering, not real science.
Concerning Nut Zero:
7 billion of 8 billion people live in nations that could not care less about Nut Zero. It can not possibly stop the rise of CO2 emissions, and our C3 photosynthesis plants (90%) are thrilled by that fact.
Nut Zero is not feasible, affordable or necessary.
In fact, anyone with sense can see that Nut Zero is nothing more than a vision statement with an arbitrary completion date. Nut Zero can not go according to plan, because there is no feasible plan, and there never will be one.
Leftist scientists and engineers know that, and keep quiet.
Leftists ruin everything they touch.
So why are they now starting to ruin electric grids?
Because leftists want a fundamental transformation of the US economy. While Obama was President we assumed that meant socialism. But the US is already a socialist nation: In 2022, 34.5% of GDP is government spending at all levels of government combined — that meets my definition of socialism.
So why is fundamental transformation continuing?
The obvious answer is the end goal is Marxism, not socialism. To implement Marxism the government must ruin capitalism (actually socialism) so people will demand a change. Leftists are working hard to ruin he US economy. Nut Zero will be the big push in the next decade. We libertarians and conservatives will not like the result of fundamental transformation.
I want to thank Monckton for not including politics in his article this time and so far not calling any commenters “communists”. Which he has done to me even though I am anti-communist.
I used this comment (I hope it shows up) to talk about the politics of climate change scaremongering and Nut Zero. The junk science of climate scaremongering, and Rube Goldberg shabby engineering of Nut Zero, should be separate subjects from the politics.
Please don’t use the term “communists”, even if some leftists are in that group. That word turns off too many readers … try “Climate Howlers” to insult climate alarmists in a funny way.
Never ever give the Climate Howlers and their always wrong climate computer games respect — they do not deserve respect
“…like all the best methods, is based more on observational than on numerical techniques.”
“Eq. (1) assumes that the realized fraction of observed industrial-era warming was driven by the realized forcing (i.e., the difference between the total period anthropogenic forcing and the satellite-measured Earth energy imbalance).”
Claiming a lower ECS just makes one as equally foolish as those pushing higher ECS values.
CO2 is observed to significantly lag SST≥25.6°C by 5 months, ie, the climate warmed first.
That observation alone falsifies all the ECS calculations as unphysical meaningless fantasies.
Obviously, ECS calculations such as Eq. (1) are therefore inherently based on a false premise, the just now falsified climate theory that CO2 changes precede and force climate warming.
Repeated numerical attempts to lower ECS only serve to prolong the life of this wrong theory. Will people ever learn and stop promoting what is so easily refuted?
This curve fitting claptrap.
There is thermal inertia. The global ocean buffers Earth’s temperature from rapid change; that stability has been fundamental to the evolution of complex life on our planet over millions of years.
Earth’s temperature doesn’t react instantly to each year’s new record-high carbon dioxide levels. Thanks to the high heat capacity of water and the huge volume of the global oceans, Earth’s surface temperature resists rapid changes. Said another way, some of the excess heat that greenhouse gases force the Earth’s surface to absorb in any given year is hidden for a time by the ocean.
This delayed reaction means rising greenhouse gas levels don’t immediately have their full impact on surface temperature. Still, when we step back and look at the big picture, it’s clear the two are tightly connected with ocean warming coming after CO2 rises in the atmosphere and inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself.
Apparently actual facts are really scary for Richard.
Real science involves investigating temporal relationships statistically, which I did.
Curve-fitting is where one or more inputs are assigned coefficients then combined in a made-up formula to arrive at a final curve that might approximate another curve.
In the case of my plot, that was not performed, so it was not curve-fitting as claimed.
Why should I be surprised at this blatant denial of reality from a warmist?
Your theory is wrong
Therefore, your chart is bogus.
You are a climate crackpot
” CO2 rises in the atmosphere and inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself.”
Ah ha! By how much you reckon? ….Say in the last 8 years?
The global average temperature change in any period is the net result of many different climate change variables. CO2 is one of many. If CO2 rises, and the average temperature does not rise, we know CO2 is not a “temperature control knob”
To know the exact effect of CO2, we would have to know the exact effect of perhaps 10 other climate change variables. No human knows that. So the effect of CO2 can only be guessed as small, medium or high. No effect is very unlikely.
There is an alternative that is more useful to answer the question “Is rising CO2 harmful?”
A worst case answer would be based on the assumption that al +1.1 degrees C. of global warming since 1859 was caused by CO2 levels rising. Even using that worst case assumption, CO2 has not been harmful.
So we know something about CO2 that is very important: Rising CO2 has been harmless.
Why is that when the monthly MLO data show that the Winter ramp-up peaks in May almost every year, and reaches a minimum in September or October every year. There appears to be little lag between CO2 and temperature.
It is most reasonable to check the hypothesis of anomalous surface heating related to excess heat trapping gases by observing OLR. there it is observed that delta OLR is positive during warm periods. There is no such thing that the OLR remains constant or reduced during warming. It increases. Planetary heat uptake is lowest during warm spikes, such as los ninos.
OLR is observed to increase 2.93 +/− 0.3 W/m2 per K. This is very nearly precisely the expected planck response 3.3 Wm-2 per K.
Observe the corrupted GISS surface record, which is evidently running too hot. A revision to the GISS record is recommended. This revision would place the observed OLR precisely in line with Planck response. The earth effectively stopped warming in the early 2000s.
Pretty clear there is no warming effect from increasing CO2. OLR continues to vary with temperature which is driven by natural cycles. If anything, this is falsification of the greenhouse warming theory.
Why does all the data stop around 2018. Would be interesting to see the change over the past 4 years. Assume it went up with the El Nino in 2019-20 and then back down with the triple dip La Nina. Just more verification of your claims.
thank you. The photo link should take you to the following publication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327874661_Decadal_Changes_of_Earth%27s_Outgoing_Longwave_Radiation
Amazing: If you are right about CO2, almost every skeptic climate scientist, from Happer to Lindzen, is wrong. My vote is with Happer and Lindzen.
Happer uses assumptions to show low end of forcing assuming constant relative humidity.
In reality, relative humidity is decreasing. This results in positive OLR.
The experiment is obviously straightforward in concept, to validate the hypothesis… i.e. to observe line by line the change in OLR to compare to models.
Instead, we see excuses. “No hyperspectral sensor capable.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5
The models predict negative OLR.
Maths —-
IPCC AR5 chapter 12
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
published their effective RF formula “that aggregates all anthropogenic forcings including GHGs and aerosols. The conversion to RF uses the formula: RF = 3.71/ln(2) ∙ ln(CO2eq/278) W m–2, where
CO2eq is in ppmv.
By 2017 the ppmv CO2 was about 400
Their coefficient results in a predicted delta OLR
-3.71 x ln(400/278) = -1.35 W m-2
Previously, the coefficient was 3.53
During the OLR period of record in the data presented, therefore, at the low end thus =
-3.53 x ln(CO2_2018/CO2_1985)
-3.53 x ln(408/346)
IPCC style predicted delta OLR = -0.6 W m-2 from 1985 to 2018
Sometimes reality is not immediately obvious, even if it is slapping us right in the face.
Is it any wonder you never see the plots of delta OLR readily available, or delta line by line spectral profiles from balloon? How have the spectral profiles changed? From which lines are the positive OLR emanating? The hypothesis has failed, but it is taught to children in textbooks like it is a known theory.
I have had this thought but have never followed it. We should have decades of satellite data that should be examined line by line to see what intensities have changed and in what direction.
If someone uses a “formula” with coefficients that change in order to keep up with changing data, then it is curve fitting which has no predictive value whatsoever.
yes. i’m not sure it’s so critical (other than being ridiculous), but it highlights the fundamental issue when comparing radiative forcing concepts with observed phenomena.
The notion that OLR is increasing while simultaneously less heat is radiating outwards due to greenhouse enhancement is illogical.
Increasing OLR while simultaneously surface temperature is rising is not how any of this is supposed to work.
Certainly, in the long run, the initial OLR due to increased heat trapping cannot be restored without adding additional heat. OLR must be at a new, lower, equilibrium state if using a longwave radiative forcing hypothesis. This is unphysical and not observed in nature.
“The earth effectively stopped warming in the early 2000s.”
Not in the UAH database,
Yor statement is claptrap.
RG,
Please explain. Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahdec2022.jpg
That chart is only Australia, not a global average temperature, which, by the way, has been flat for eight years (UAH data)
”Not in the UAH database,”
Really?
Remove thermal shock lag of 2016 and 2020. I think you could validly say warming effectively stopped in the early 2000s
That’s data mining.
Rubbish. Enso is not caused by co2.
From the article: “Note that the Monte Carlo distribution is for midrange ECS only. The upper bound may be as much as the 2.1 K suggested in Roy Spencer’s paper.”
What’s the lower bound?
Good question and of course, there is no lower bound. It could be less than zero. All depends on natural climate cycles.
On the MC graph it looks like the lower limit might be 0.8K.
Well done to KarloMonte for looking at the graph and reading off the answer. To verify the eyeballing: if one takes the low-end values for all data bar the anthropogenic period forcing (there, one takes the high end), the equation shows the least possible value of midrange ECS is just shy of 0.78 K.
My Lord, thank you for this information. Should you be looking for more work, I believe that it would be of value for you to write a paper explaining just why the incremental cost of electricity during periods of shortage reach into the many $1,000’s per megawatt-hour. It seems to be due in part to the extraordinary inefficiencies of operating fossil fuel backup generators by the rules the wind/solar grid must obey. But there may be many other factors as well.
When you have printing presses churning out fiat money 24/7, it’s not such a high price to pay.
Until you have to pay the piper for the resulting inflation.
Great article. I had to laugh at a couple of things.
If you remember, NIST Technical Note 1900 (TN1900) was brought up in an earlier thread about uncertainty in measurements. I just reread it a couple of times in the last few days and lo and behold the following was in there.
I also wrote an answer to a post with the following.
This goes right along with an observational equation. It isn’t necessary to identify all the ands, buts, and maybes, simple observations should help elucidate the end result. Basically what you have done here.
Good job.
I am most grateful to Jim Gorman for his kind comment. The energy-budget method is by its very nature observationally-based, and it provides a simple method of showing just how little warming we can expect on the basis of the continuing failure of global temperature to rise at anything like the originally-predicted rate.
The only warming the the UAH data has come at the two major El Nino events.
These have absolutely nothing to do with CO2.
So, using a calculated linear trend in UAH, (which isn’t linear) and pretending CO2 is the only cause….
.. really doesn’t make any sense.
The CO2 warming in the UAH data .. is essentially ZERO (or indistinguishable from ZERO.)
This means that the temperature saving per $billion… or per $ trillion… is ZERO !
ie will have absolutely no “less-warming” effect whatsoever.
Much as I would like to spread this paper to a wider audience, I’m afraid that as I was banned by LinkedIn a couple of days ago, that method of reaching many thousands of sensible people, concerned about local energy system collapse and global energy poverty, is no longer possible!
Is there anyone else willing to risk the wrath of the Thought Police who can spread this through the ether?
I left Linked a long time ago.
I am still trying figure out if Eq. (1) is correct. However there is one thing about “M” any consensus scientist would definitely point out. The anthropogenic share of global warming is not just about 100%, but rather the GHG related share is more like 150%. That is because another -50% was due to pollution. So when it comes to calculating climate sensitivity 2xCO2 (and equivalents) M should rather be 1.5, not 0.85.
Not really , the paper takes all the IPCC’s “forcings” and other assumptions as a given.
That includes underesized ( arbitrary ) AOD scaling which invites fitting over sensitive climate. He also relies heavily of OHC “data” back to 1970 which is a total farce. OHC data that far back was far too sparse to do anything with in terms of global modelling.
I guess this is intentionally part of a strategy of accepting as much as possible of your opponents position and still getting a now ECS. However, it does come out as tacitly accepting all the data rigging and parameter tweaking they have done over the last 30y.
Interestingly Spencer and Christy’s “best fit” is already running hot at the end of the existing data and warming notably faster than the data. It is clearly an over-estimation out of the gate.
I borrowed this graphic from Tony Heller. Until someone can explain why CO2 can increase 25% of more and cause no warming at all at many locations across the globe, then 100% of climate studies are suspect. Start with the basics. Why does CO2 cause warming in some locations and not others? Until you can explain that simple question, all these studies are nonsense, and certainly can’t explain this observation.
You forgot to include the GISS adjustments. /sarc