From Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
by Frank Bosse
A very interesting blog post by Gavin Schmidt provides input on “constraining“ the observed TCR ( Transient Climate Response) in the time window 1979- 2022 using the latest climate models.
Gavin presents a comparison of the “Models screened by their TCR” against observations using the GISS surface temperature data:
Fig.1: Reproduction of the 1st figure in Gavin’s blog post.
What does Gavin mean by “Models screened by TCR“? He refers Tokarska et al (2020). Tokarska et al used all CMIP6 (and CMIP5) models to constrain the TCR using regression against the observed warming. This is not exactly the method Gavin used. From the chapter “Constraints on the TCR” of Tokarska (2020):
“We find that the recent warming trend (1981–2017) is strongly correlated with TCR across CMIP6 models (R = 0.82)”
This also means that the warming trend for 1979 to 2022 is more correlated with the TCR than was found in Tokarska et al (2020) because the time window is longer: 44 vs. 37 years.
The trend slopes tell the story of the implied TCR.
Tokarska et al describe “observations-constrained TCR“ as:
“The observationally constrained TCR likely range (17 to 83%), based on CMIP6 models alone, of 1.20° to 1.99°C with a median of 1.60°C”
The best estimate of TCR based on CMIP6 models (the red line in Fig.1) is 1.6K / 2*CO2, following the cited paper.
Using the preliminary GMST data from GISS for January – October 2022, I reconstruct Fig.1 from Gavin’s post to estimate the warming trend slopes 1979-2022:
Fig. 2: The added GMST for 2022 and the OLS trend slopes for Observations and the “TCR-constrained“ CMIP6 models, digitized from Fig.1 of Gavin’s blog post.
The trend slopes (“which are strongly correlated with TCR“, as Tokarska et al stated) have a difference, the observations (GISS) showing a 21% lower trend slope than the TCR constrained CMIP6-models, which have a TCR of 1.6 as the best estimate.
Considering this fact, the observations point to a TCR of 1.6/1.21= 1.3 K/doubling of CO2 as the best estimate. The 17 to 83 % likely range from the regression is 1.22 to 1.38.
These TCR values are very similar to the estimate of Lewis/Curry (2018).
The TCR of 1.3, confirmed by the latest data, gives a warming in 2100 of 1.75 vs. pre-industrial times, when considering the 4.5 W/m² forcing scenario. We would remain within the “2°C goal“ even with a forcing of 5W/m² to 2100, we would produce 1.9 K of warming.
All available serious literature excludes a catastrophic outcome of the global warming, if we remain within the 2K limit. It seems very likely that we will do so. No doom and no need for glue on streets and paintings. Somebody should inform the scared people who are doing such strange things in the name of “The Science“.
Science tells it otherwise, giving much hope that mankind will avoid the “catastrophic climate endgame”.
Starting in 1979. How “convenient.”
Now start at the height of the Medieval Warm Period, and recalculate.
TCR – Terminally Contorted Regurgitation
Go back to the mid-Holocene to further confuse the issue.
I’d have said illuminate rather than confuse
Something else is even more “convenient”. All of Gavin’s graph up to about 2014 is a hindcast. In other words, when doing these runs the modellers already knew the answer for most of the run. They would use fudge factors – sorry, I mean parameterisation – to ensure the run closely matched the historical data. This probably makes the whole exercise futile.
If the hindcast / forecast line was on Gavin’s original graph then I would give him credit for honesty. I really wish that all graphs showing model runs would clearly state the year of the run, because it allows us to judge how much was a genuine forecast and how much was fraudulently altered to match the past.
Chris
1979 is convenient because it is the start of a warming period that began with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977.
These analyses typically employ the conservative assumption that ALL observed warming is due to increasing CO2 and give an UPPER BOUND Climate Sensitivity (CS) of just over 1C/doubling. IF some of that warming is natural, which it certainly is, CS will be less.
Gavin Schmidt uses GISTEMP, which starts in 1880 and is not as accurate as the satellite temperatures that started in 1979 (UAH, Christy and Spencer). GISTEMP gives a slightly higher result than UAH6.0.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend
If Schmidt had started his analysis in 1880, this would have included several natural cooling and warming periods and his calculation of TCR would have been much lower.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1880/plot/gistemp/from:1880/trend
Using the same assumption for the natural cooling period from 1940 to 1977 gives a NEGATIVE climate sensitivity.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend
Using the observation that atmospheric CO2 changes LAG atmospheric temperature changes by ~~9 months in the modern data record (~Kuo et al 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum et al 2013) suggests that the entire CAGW hypothesis of “increasing CO2 drives increasing temperature” is false and CS is near-zero or non-existent.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
Note: I don’t use terms like ECS, TCS, or TCR because the whole concept is nonsense:
“The future cannot cause the past.”
Further verification of my above post – excerpt from Ole Humlum’s 7Dec2022 presentation (below):
“Changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in global air temperature; changes in global air temperature follow changes in ocean surface temperature. Natural sinks and sources for atmospheric CO2 apparently far outweigh human contribution. [I told you so ~15 years ago – MacRae Jan2008] Tide gauges along coasts indicate a typical global sea level increase of about 1-2 mm/year, while satellite observations suggest an increase of about 3.3 mm/yr. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979 show opposite developments to each other, neither alarming. There is no overall trend in tropical storm and hurricane activity. He concludes that these observations reveal that there is no climate emergency. [We told you so 20 years ago – Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae Nov2002]”
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT October 20, 2021. Update November 11, 2022
https://correctpredictions.ca/
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
Our scientific predictions on both Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.
THE STATE OF THE CLIMATE – BASED ON REAL OBSERVATIONS – PROFESSOR OLE HUMLUM
Dec 7, 2022
The State of the Climate – Based on Real Observations – Professor Ole Humlum – YouTube
A Zoom lecture arranged by ISCF (icsf.ie) and Clintel (clintel.org) and held on 7th December, 2022.
In this lecture, Prof Humlum uses meteorological and climatological data to assess the real state of earth’s climate. Temperature records confirm that observed average global air temperature rise over last 30 years is about +0.15oC per decade. Since 2004, the global oceans above 1900 m depth on average have warmed about 0.07oC. Recent variations between El Niño and La Niña episodes are not unusual. Changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in global air temperature; changes in global air temperature follow changes in ocean surface temperature. Natural sinks and sources for atmospheric CO2 apparently far outweigh human contributions. Tide gauges along coasts indicate a typical global sea level increase of about 1-2 mm/year, while satellite observations suggest an increase of about 3.3 mm/yr. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979 show opposite developments to each other, neither alarming. There is no overall trend in tropical storm and hurricane activity. He concludes that these observations reveal that there is no climate emergency.
Professor Ole Humlum has numerous qualifications from the University of Copenhagen and was Scientific Director, Arctic Station, Qeqertarsuaq, Greenland. He also was Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Visiting Associate Professor, Faroese Natural Museum, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands, and Full Professor, Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Svalbard, Norway, and Full Professor, Physical Geography, at the University of Oslo. He continued as Visiting Scholar, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Geosciences, Scotland. After retirement, he is director for the consulting firm Arctic HERO (Arctic Historical Evaluation and Research Organisation; climate, geomorphology and natural hazards). Each month he publishes his excellent http://www.climate4you.com/ updates, summarised annually as a GWPF “State of the Climate” publication.
“All available serious literature excludes a catastrophic outcome of the global warming, if we remain within the 2K limit.”
Is it not also true that the historical record excludes the claim that we should consider 2K a limit? You don’t need the “serious literature” to exclude a catastrophic outcome in any case.
Isn’t it the case that the 2° threshold was downgraded to 1.5° when it became apparent that even applying all the RCP8.5 conjectures we would never exceed the 2° threshold this century (if ever!)
The question now is how long before even the real hardcore activists start running out of excuses.
Socialists seem to come with a built in excuse generator.
Tell me about it! 🤨
There is no literature, serious or otherwise that includes a catastrophic outcome if global temperatures exceed the 2K limit.
There is no serious literature which includes the possibility of even reaching the 2K limit, much less exceeding it.
The minor little problem is that GISS is rather corrupted with UHI and infill. UAH does not show anywhere near that much agreement with the models.
“The minor little problem is that GISS is rather corrupted”
So if the results correlate with corrupted data, what does that say about the results? It says the results are corrupt, too.
So even the science by 97% consensus shows that we will not get catastrophic warming if we simply do nothing.
If we double our carbon pollution by building a parallel green infrastructure while maintaining the current one, we actually end up worse off. As the EU+UK are discovering.
Linear models in a nonlinear, long-cycle world are a massive loser for humanity.
The CERES data has already demonstrated the only warming over the past 20 years was due to an increase in solar energy. Using that warming to calculate TCR is not science.
What climate science has never answered is “how much does climate vary naturally”? Without knowing that answer, no one knows if what we observe is due to human activity or not. It is all guesswork and expert opinion which is not science.
Isn’t that the Achillies Heel of Climate Science?
While it may be tempting to throw rocks at MSM headlines it appears largely ineffective. How do you storm a Castle? Undermine the foundations. Unless the walls are built on bedrock the castle will fall.
“What climate science has never answered is “how much does climate vary naturally”? Without knowing that answer, no one knows if what we observe is due to human activity or not. It is all guesswork and expert opinion which is not science.
Isn’t that the Achillies Heel of Climate Science?”
Yes, it is.
To this day, not one person on this planet can tell you how much warmth a given amount of CO2 would add to the Earth’s atmosphere.
There are lots of guesses, but nothing definitive. Yet we have all sorts of people claiming they know what this figure is and have created a whole false reality around it aimed at reining in CO2, but what they are actually accomplishing is destoying the economies of the Western Democracies. All based on a guess about CO2.
And not one of the watermelons will even try to answer the question of what is the optimum CO2 atmospheric concentration.
I like that as a question to the sheeples. Thank you. I suspect a lot of the laity would say zero. That would provide an opportunity to explain what that would mean for life on the planet – easily supported by even Google.
The ones posting to WUWT are at least smart enough to understand that zero is death, so they are boxed in by their own propaganda.
For life, and authentic science the optimum level of CO2 is around double the current ambient atmospheric level.
For political agenda, the optimal level of CO2 was when humans started burning fossil fuels.
Maybe I am missing something but the majority of this correlation study appears to be based on hindcasting, i.e. predicting what has already happened. Well I can do that without a model, computer or large government grant. What’s the point?
On top of that, they are hindcasting bogus GISS temperature records and they are only hindcasting the warm part of a cyclical pattern.
They should try hindcasting the UAH satellite record, and the U.S. temperature chart, Hansen 1999, for anything earlier than 1979. The picture would look a lot different if they did.
Alarmist Climate Science = Deception
It’s all they have.
I think you answered your own question
Closer to what the climate
“deniers”skeptics have been saying all along, but using GISTEMP for the analysis reveals the continuing dishonesty. Schmidt still wants to play his warmist games. GISTEMP is consistently the warmest of all the global temperature data. Notice that it continues to warm after the temperature spike in 1998 from the big El Niño. UAH shows it cooling until the 2016 El Niño.stinkerp, you wrote, “GISTEMP is consistently the warmest of all the global temperature data. Notice that it continues to warm after the temperature spike in 1998 from the big El Niño. UAH shows it cooling until the 2016 El Niño.”
Some of that warming with GISTEMP between the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Ninos was caused by Gavin’s GISS switching from NOAA’s ersst.v3 sea surface temperature anomaly data to NOAA’s “pause buster” erssst.v4 data in July 2015. See the WUWT post here:
Both NOAA and GISS Have Switched to NOAA’s Overcooked “Pause-Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Data for Their Global Temperature Products – Watts Up With That?
Figure 8 from that post confirms your statement:
08-comparison-2001-start.png (640×436) (wordpress.com)
Regards,
Bob
PS: stinkerp, there were lots of posts here at WUWT about NOAA’s ersst.v4 and ersst.v5 SSTa data back in the mid-to-late 2010s. Put pause buster in the WUWT search feature for them.
Regards,
Bob
“Closer to what the climate
“deniers”skeptics have been saying all along”Not really. People endlessly fail to distinguish TCR from ECS. A post like this should always define the terms. If you want to say how much warming follows from a GHG change, you have to carefully state what the GHG change is and what is the measure of temperature change.
ECS says the GHG change is sudden CO2 doubling, thereafter no change. ΔT is resulting change from initial until equilibrium is reached.
TCR is closer to what you can measure empirically. ΔGHG is CO2 increasing exponentially until doubled after 70 years. ΔT is change after 70 years.
Observation conditions don’t match either of these, but are closer to TCR. TCR is less than ECS, and 1.6 as here is a fairly mainstream value.
GISS is a fabrication based on sparse, erratically spaced, urban, airport … plus suppository driven mal-adjustments
It bears basically zero resemblance to any real global temperature.
Using it for any correlation calculation of CO2 warming is the total antithesis of science.
bnice200;
You say, “GISS is a fabrication based on sparse, erratically spaced, urban, airport … plus suppository driven mal-adjustments”.
The underlying problem is worse than you suggest because
(a) there is no agreed definition of ‘global temperature’
and
(b) there is no possibility of an independent calibration standard for any determination of ‘global temperature’ however it is defined.
Each of the teams – including GISS – who provide time series of ‘global temperature’ uses its own unique definition of ‘global temperature’ which it alters on a monthly basis.
Also, the lack of any independent calibration for ‘global temperature’ means the only available ‘test’ of a used definition is comparison with expectations (e.g. from model outputs) or with time series provided from MSU measurements obtained from orbital satellites. And the definition can be altered to meet the desired expectation and it is altered most months.
TCS and ECS are derived from time series of ‘global temperature’ determinations. However, points (a) and (b) mean all determinations of anything derived from time series of ‘global temperature’ are meaningless. For example, it is meaningless to claim any distinction between determinations TCS and ECS because both are derived from meaningless values of ‘global temperature’.
For more information on these matters please see
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm
and note its appendices.
Richard
Nick,
The oft-mentioned work of van Wijngaarden and Happer infers that a doubling of CO2 in the air, from roughly present levels, will have little effect because of overlaps of radiation absorption from different GHG and because of the extent of saturation of the ability of GHG to absorb much more radiation.
If their work is essentially correct, the discussion of TCR and ECS needs to be viewed in a different radiation. If it is wrong, there will conventionally be papers showing how and why it is wrong and some consequences.
On which existing peer-reviewed publication(s) do you rely to demonstrate either acceptance or rejection of their work?
Geoff S
Geoff, the oft-unread work of van W and H does not say that. I set out what it really says here, and see following comments. They repeated the classic calculations of Manabe and Weatherald, and got the same results. Here is their Table 5 showing sensitivities just the same as earlier
Incidentally the paper has been around for three years without AFAIK finding a publisher.
“Incidentally the paper has been around for three years without AFAIK finding a publisher.”
Wot !? Given the active censorship, are you surprised that it has not breached the great wall ?
It isn’t published because it tells us nothing new.
More handwaving.
Nick,
Your response is in conflict with several later contexts written by vW&H. Like “The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earth’s five most important greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space. Over 1/3 million lines having strengths as low as 10-27 cm of the HITRAN database were used to evaluate the dependence of the forcing on the gas concentrations. For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others, the per-molecule forcings are of order 10-22 W for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O3, N2O and CH4, are also suppressed, but much less so. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to three orders of magnitude greater for O3, N2O and CH4, than those of H2O or CO2. Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few per cent. These forcing results are close to previously published values even though the calculations did not utilize either a CO2 or H2O continuum. The change in surface temperature due to CO2 doubling is estimated taking into account radiative-convective equilibrium of the atmosphere as well as water feedback for the cases of fixed absolute and relative humidities as well as the effect of using a pseudoadiabatic lapse rate to model the troposphere temperature. “
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/publications/
………………………..
Note the different scenarios, one being “For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands … and another being “For current atmospheric concentrations ….”.
Are you sure you noticed this?
Geoff S
So my statement is demonstrably true. Climate skeptics have been saying all along that warming from CO2 is exaggerated. Schmidt just demonstrated that he thinks it’s less than what the party-line alarmists have said.
QED
(“Daddy’s come around to Mama’s way of thinking…”)
https://youtu.be/7Ahizpz_BXo
How is this any better than calculating TCR directly from the GISS data? How do the selected models do when run back to 1900? It seems to me that the process used is just an exercise in selection bias based on an unproven assumption that temperature change is driven exclusively by CO2 concentration. Don’t see how this adds anything useful to CliSci.
They start in 1850.
The models use the recorded data between 1850 and the CMIP6 run date to set the thousands of parameters that they are based on. It is a curve fitting exercise with an assumption about the influence of CO2 causing all the observed heating. They then extrapolate to 2100 because that is when Earth burns up.
The would fit whatever data is available in 1900 quite well because they were tuned to it.
Everyone should know that there was no climate change prior to 1850. Glaciation is like man landing on the moon – it did not happen. And can never happen in a warming world that is driven by CO2.
The increasing snow fall is an embarrassment for the modellers. They will come out soon and say that the snow is consistent with warming – in fact there is already signs of that with adjustments being made to the show fall parameters.
So reality is causing some rethinking but they are still a long way from any real understanding. Blinded by the assumptions that climate did not change prior to 1850 and that ALL climate change is the result of CO2.
There’s been a slow and more or less steady increase in temperatures since around 1850.
The big increase in the rate of CO2 accumulation in 1950.
It’s been 70 years since 1950. If there was any kind of measurable temperature response, shouldn’t it have shown up by now?
That is only true for the average.
Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are cooling.
The mid tropical Pacific, referred to as the Nino34 region, and a key indicator of global weather has no trend.
The most warming is occurring in winter on NH land masses. January temperature on the Greenland plateau has increased 8 degrees over the past 70 years.
The oceans north of 20N have rapidly rising July temperature. Rising at 2.9C per century. That is four times faster than the SH ocean south of 20N.
There are two explanations for the observed changes. CO2 can selectively warm and cool or the peak solar intensity has been progressing northward since 1400 under the influence of orbital precession.
My only question is how long it will take for the climate modellers to understand what drives Earth’s climate?
Let’s get real. CO2 pre-industrial was around 300 ppm, currently, it is about 400 ppm, which means that at best man has contributed 100 ppm over the past 300 years, What does that mean? Man has added 1 molecule out of 10,000, and that molecule vibrates with the energy of a -80 C Blackbody when activated by 15-micron LWIR. Does anyone actually believe that vibrating 1 out of every 10,000 molecules can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 9,999. Newsflash, that is a joke, and the greatest scientific fraud in world history.
Have you ever tried doing the math? The average kinetic energy of a gas molecule is 3/2kT, where k is the Boltzman constant (1.38E-23 J/K/molecule) and T is the gas temperature in Kelvin – say 288K at sea level on average, for an energy of about 6E-21J. It is also 1/2mv^2, where m is its mass (44 Daltons or about 44×1.66E-27 kg for CO2) and v its velocity in meters/sec, so v is sqrt(6E-21×2/(44×1.66E-27)) = 405m/sec. A CO2 molecule is like a barbell tumbling in three dimensions in space, so it sweeps out a path that is roughly a sphere with the diameter of its length, which is of the order of 3E-10m: from πr^2 the volume swept per second is πx9E-20×405/4 or about 2.9E-17m^3/sec. The average space occupied by a gas molecule in air (think of it as a lattice with a molecule at the centre of each tiny cube) can be derived from the gas equation PV=nRT – rearranging V/n=RT/P, and dividing by Avagadro’s number N gives V=kT/P, where P is the pressure (1.01325E5 Pa for a “standard” sea level atmosphere), or 1.38E-23×288/1.01325E5, or about 3.9E-26m^3. Dividing the results 2.9E-17/3.9E-26 gives 7.4E8 collisions per second. In fact, it will be more, because the other air molecules are also jiggling about (slightly faster because they have lower molecular weights), presenting a larger target: if we take the average molecular weight of air as 29 Daltons, then their average speed squared will be 44/29 times bigger, and the collision rate is multiplied by a factor of sqrt(1+44/29) or about 1.6. 99.96% of those collisions will be with other gases – nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc..
When a collision occurs, momentum and energy are conserved. In practice, gas molecules are all moving around at different speeds, some faster than average, and some slower. In most collisions the faster moving molecule will transfer some of its kinetic energy to the slower moving one, speeding it up, while itself slowing down. The overall energy of all the molecules does not change in this process – the temperature remains constant, unless something else changes. However, if you light a bonfire you will inject a stream of heated molecules into the local atmosphere: via collisions they will transfer some of their energy to the other molecules around them until it is averaged out, and the local atmosphere is a little bit hotter. Or think of a heater in your room doing the same thing.
A 15 micron wavelength photon has an energy of hc/λ where h is Planck’s constant 6.6E-34Jsec and c is the speed of light 3E8m/sec and λ is 1.5E-5 meters, or about 1.32E-20J. If it is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, the energy (which is about twice the average kinetic energy of 6E-21J) goes mainly into making it flap its oxygen arms like butterfly wings at a frequency of c/λ or 2E13Hz, each flap taking just 5E-14seconds, during which time the molecule will move 405x5E-14 metres, or about 2E-11 metres, compared with its overall length of about 3E-10 metres. As it encounters another molecule there is a good chance that the flailing oxygen atoms will act like a boxer unleashing a flurry of punches, and some of the energy will be transferred to the other molecule in the same way as a boxer can knock his opponent across the ring. I have kept this description in the realm of classical physics to make it conceptually easier to follow: in practice we are dealing at this level in quantum mechanics, which adds another layer of complexity – but the classical physics gets us into the right ballpark.
Of course, an energetic CO2 molecule may also emit a photon spontaneously, so the question becomes how likely is that to happen before the molecule has transferred some of its energy to the kinetic energy of other air molecules. The answer is in the realm of quantum mechanics, but in the lower atmosphere you will see hundreds or thousands of collisions before a photon will be emitted, so some heating occurs. In the higher atmosphere, where it is colder and less dense with low pressures, emission becomes more probable than energy transfer by collision. That means that GHGs become cooling gases, with the small fraction that happen to be moving at well above average speeds more likely to release some of that energy into photons that escape to space (the photons will have a much lower probability of encountering another GHG molecule quickly because of the lower density) than to transfer it back to other molecules via collisions. Indeed, over the Antarctic temperatures are so cold that CO2 is a cooling gas. This has been measured by satellites, and theoretically derived in the work of Wijngaarden and Happer.
It is the fact that W&H show that the theoretical physics in all its quantum mechanics glory treating the whole atmosphere as an ensemble, refining the simpler tale I have presented, matches the satellite measurements of earth’s radiation to space over different parts of the earth that allows them to show that the effects of doubling GHGs are much less than the climate models project, and that several of the model predictions and assumptions are simply wrong. Don’t knock good science!
It Does Not Add Up, that is a lot of effort to spew complete nonsense. H2O absorbs the exact same LWIR as CO2 does, and far far far more. H2O can go from 0 to 4 parts per hundred, not a million, hundred. The potency of H2O is magnitudes of CO2, and it swings all over the place without comparable huge swings in temperature. The earth emits 10-micron LWIR, CO2 absorbs 15, the far far far right tale of the emission spectrum. It vibrates with the energy of a -80 C black body. You won’t warm anything by adding -80 C to it anywhere on earth. 15-micron also won’t penetrate or warm water, visible radiation will. BTW, ice emits 12-micron LWIR, if CO2 could actually warm water, ice would melt itself. You could also warm you house by simply bubble wrapping it in pure CO2 bubbles. A jet or Submarine has around 10,000 ppm, and they aren’t ovens. If you understand this graphic, you will understand how catastrophically wrong you are. Note how CO2 lines up with the 210 K Black Body Curve, how CO2 is way right where the earth isn’t emitting much 15 micron LWIR, and note how H2O absorbs 15-micron and far far far more.
This one does a better showing the temperature and spectrum.
At the current concentration of 400 ppm, CO2 absorbs 100% of LWIR of 15-Microns by 3 meters. You can test this yourself at SpectralCalc. News Flash!!! You can only absorb 100% of emitted LWIR. Increasing CO2 would only reduce the altitude at which 100% of LWIR of 15-micron is absorbed. CO2 can’t and doesn’t magnify the amount of energy that is absorbed. Test it yourself, no extended nonsensical explanation is needed, just a calculator.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
I suggest you actually try to understand the work of Wijngaarden & Happer.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf
The key is this, so far as CO2 is concerned:
It Does Not Add Up, I’m not sure you understand the graphic you have posted. It basically is the same graphic I posted, but with wave number. You do understand that wave number between 550 and 750, peak 666, is CO2, and that is very very very low energy. It is also looking down from 70 km. There is no doubt that CO2 easily absorbs 100% of outgoing LWIR of 15-micron, I demonstrated that above with the gas cell. You can go to MODTRAN and replicate that graphic and you will see that altering CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm does very very very little, A simply cloud layer will have 70 to 80x the impact on W/m^2. If you want to see the real impact, don’t look down from 70 km, look down from 5 km for the Troposphere, and you will see that that blip for CO2 doesn’t exist. Any layer of the atmosphere where H20 exists, CO2 is irrelevent. H20 exists in the atmosphere where life exists and the glaciers reside. Looking up from the ground also give you a better idea of what can be warming the oceans and earth. Your graphic means nothing when you put it in the context of the warming surface of the earth and oceans.
You wrote:
Your first sentence is wrong. The energy is E=hv, or 1.32E-20J and it primarily activates the bending vibration mode of CO2. It is not a blackbody energy: it is a quantum energy, which is about twice the average kinetic energy of the molecules at sea level. It can only be emitted as a photon of similar energy, and has nothing to do with black body radiation: the molecule is a quantum emitter, not a black body. It can be transmuted into kinetic energy. By the same token the small number of thermally competent CO2 molecules with kinetic energies above this photon energy (a fraction that can be derived from the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution) are capable of radiating a 15 micron photon and thus cooling the gas. You have not understood the physics.
Your second sentence denies the reality. If you run a convective electric fire in your room it will heat a very small volume of air – I have one that is about 70x45x10cm, which has a volume of 0.0315 m^3. 10,000 times the volume is 315m^3, or a large room about 11 metres square with a 2.5 metre ceiling. Your claim is that the fire would be incapable of adding any warmth to the room. The reality is that by convection currents, molecular diffusion and collision the whole room is heated. In the case of heating as a result of radiative absoprtion convection currents are not needed: diffusion and collision will disperse the energy among the other molecules.
Your subsequent posts then attempt bluster to cover up your inadequate claims by dragging in the role of water and clouds. I will once again refer to to Wijngaarden and Happer, whose calculations take full account of the water vapour (concentrated in the lower atmosphere) for cloud free atmospheric columns over the Antarctic, Sahara and Mediterranean. Getting that right is the first step. They show that CO2 does have a role as a GHG, contributing by absorbing at frequencies where water vapour absorption is not so intense, but that the effects of doubling its concentration (and likewise for other GHGs) have tended to be grossly exaggerated in the IPCC approved literature.
It is well known that climate models are completely inadequate in their handling of clouds, which are a whole different ball of wax, as they include liquid drops and solid crystals that bring in a whole range of different behaviours.
Idau,
Thank you for the numbers. They are poorly understood by most people. I am shaky with them because molecular spectroscopy was young and developing when I did my years on atomic spectroscopy.
It seems to me that people use either a quantum-mechanics or conventional physics framework to support their argument. I have tried to calculate how many CO2 molecules the air must have as a minimum for radiative effects to be detectable using our current conventional instruments.
Would you like to have a go at it?
Cheers geoff S
The parameters involved are the intensity of the radiation flux (how many photons of the right energy per area per second); the density of the GHG which together determine the frequency of potential interactions between photons and molecules; the proportion of atoms that are susceptible to absorbing a photon of a particular energy – those that are already in an occupied energy state cannot absorb a photon for that transition, and neither can photons that do not correspond to a permitted quantum transition; the collision frequency, which depends mainly on the temperature and pressure, and will be slightly higher that the straight billiard ball calculation because of Coulomb forces at closer distances; and the average time before an excited molecule emits a photon.
That’s a lot of parameters that determine the net effect, which in any case varies between warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the colder, less dense upper atmosphere where collisions are rarer. WH do calculate the optically thin limit which is the power captured by adding a GHG molecule to an otherwise non GHG atmosphere at sea level, and they show how that is saturated as GHG concentrations rise. What we can actually measure depends on the sensitivity of our instruments and the designs of our experiments. Most of the parameters involved in the calculations have been determined to high levels of accuracy. It is really only the bulk properties of the atmosphere where the uncertainties creep in.
At the end of the day, it is the fact that their work passes the Feynman test that theory matches experiment by providing n excellent match with TOA satellite measurements that impresses.
An example of the precision of measurement of fundamental constants
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-accurate-boltzmann-constant.html
We certainly can’t get anywhere close to accuracy with temperature measurement in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is interesting that they propose defining temperature via kB.
Maybe instead of Transient Climate Response, they should call it Fugacious Climate Response.
Regards,
Bob
Oh boy, Gavin Schmitt and GISS—his fraudulent temperature chart came up in the earlier UAH thread:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-3648244
How much of the actual warming since 1979 was caused by reduced SO2 emissions and the associated brightening because of the Clean Air Aacts? TCR needs to come down more in my view.
“How much of the actual warming since 1979 was caused by reduced SO2 emissions”
Good question. The answer is yet to be determined.
From Figure 1
-•-Surface Temperature Observations (GISTEMP)
______________________________________________
And that’s what, GISTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index? If so, that’s monthly data all the way back to 1880 and several hundred of those monthly entries are changed every month forming the now familiar pattern of cooling the past and warming the present. Here’s the number of changes that have been made so far in 2022:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
291 243 252 401 346 261 545 326 432 175
In other words, it looks like the observations are adjusted to match the model.
I’m not sure of having understood this properly.
It seems to be the elite backing off from the apocalyptic predictions of doom which prevail among activists at a working level.
If so, this is characteristic of peak apocalypse. The leaders of the movement originate the predictions, which are then taken up and made more extreme and definite. The activists are now predicting Rapture to take place next Sunday, planning to move to a high mountain, selling their homes.
At this point the leaders worry about credibility and the damage done by false prophecies. There will of course be Rapture, but maybe not next Sunday, maybe a year or two out, extreme rhetoric is not helpful, we have to study and pray some more.
This is where we are getting to with Climatism. Mann and Schmidt are now backing off. More will follow.
Of course the final stage is when the prophecies are decisively falsified. Its a cold night on the mountain, and when dawn breaks something has obviously gone wrong.
The effect is to increase the commitment and belief of the activists. But this doesn’t last, a second prediction is made, that too fails. Eventually the mania dies out in whispers and a few years later no-one can remember ever having heard of it.
We are in the first stage of this with climate. Schmidt is an important leading indicator. And this is the leadership getting worried.
If I understand it correctly…
I think you have absolutely understood the situation correctly, Michel.
“If I understand it correctly…”
You need to understand what TCR actually means. It isn’t ECS.
There is no unexpected result here.
“There is no unexpected result here.”
Nope, it will be what ever predetermined value is built into the fake models and fake temperature fabrications used.
It does not seem reasonable to attribute all change over a few decades to CO2 alone, and so TCR is rather vague.
The whole thing is a bit ridiculous, IMO. The models represent a system of ideas about the world – this should not be confused for reality.
Reducing the system to forced response to trace gas seems more to do with convenience, preconception, and cerebral laziness. It is not credible at any level of common sense.
Science is about creativity and imagination at the core. The whole thing has been beaten into submission by misuse and abuse of the tools of statistics, and politicized meddling.
Think of the model as the Bible/Torah/Koran and you have it nailed.
A belief system with as much or as little chance of being right as any other i suppose.
Climate models embody unique phiisics that can achieve whatever is desired through the magic of “parameters”. If you want clouds, parameters can do it. If you want to get CO2 to cause heating, parameters can do it. If you want to get surface heat into deep oceans in a matter of decades, you guessed it, parameters can do it.
Climate science is a specia branch of science where parameters rule. It is a fantasy world of parameterisation.
CMIP ensemble members are black box mashups with 10 thousands of moving parts forced to respond only to perturbation of trace gases and aerosols. The conclusions were drawn prior to development of GCMs with simple 1D depictions as the theoretical basis. The mainstream science is now about disentangling the outputs of the black box GCMs to see how the other 10 thousands of features respond to the preconceived forcing agents. The GCMs provide no proof of causal factors, but rather attempt to offer a glimpse to how other parts of the system might respond to the presumed forcings. This is how you make a career in science of climates – by offering insights into what’s going on in the GCMs. It can be easy to lose sight of reality in this process, where one starts to believe the GCMs are an adequate proxy to draw meaningful scientific insights. One gets into trouble when they start to believe they are looking at real data. With the general failure of CMIP6 to depict realistic global mean values, while concurrently constraining some internal mechanisms, I’ve notice an increasing inclination to start looking at real data again. I think this is a step in the right direction.
Such is an axiom of human nature, where learning can only commence once one can admit there has been a mistake. When one looks around it becomes apparent the most intelligent people are usually also the most humble, for they have recognized many times over opportunities to learn. It is only a fool who is stubbornly certain.
Nothing says “science” like correlating a fantasy model run with and adjusted temperature base..
That seems to reflect the growth in Amazon users, therefor i think Jeff Bezos is responsible for climate change.
We had are first snow here in N Linc’s England last night. Which is pretty much the average date across the last 46 winter seasons. l think this winter season is going to be a real tester for the whole climate change bandwagon. Arctic blasts combined with a real risk of power blackouts will l suspect quickly begin to open people’s eyes about this whole scam. lts not about climate but about control over the people by government.
“l think this winter season is going to be a real tester for the whole climate change bandwagon.”
_______________________________________
Doesn’t matter what weather any winter brings, it will be proclaimed as consistent with global warming theory.
And;
In the spirit of the times, Schmidt is a mathematician, therefor is not a climate scientologist therefore he can safely be ignored.
What’s good for the goose….
Mathematics is a tool. Mathematicians understand when and where it is appropriate to use the tool. Scientists know mathematical methods but are not trained on when and where it is appropriate to use a particular tool. Applied mathematicians specialise in the application of mathematics to solving real world problems while aware of the limitations of the mathematical tools. An example is climate models can do a reasonable job predicting tomorrow’s weather but divergences and the chaotic behaviour of Navier-Stokes equations and cloud parameterization make 100 year climate predictions a farce.
Maybe Schmidt has remembered his training in Oxford.
Schmidt is only good at manipulating data to get his desired result.
The main takeaway from this statement is that the climate models are based on thermal equilibrium in 1850. That is just wrong.
It is also inconsistent with the claim that most of the heat due to the imbalance since 1850 is being stored in the oceans because the change in solar input to the oceans has varied enormously over millennia.so why wouldn’t the oceans retain heat prior to 1850. The coupled climate models embody parameterisation that gets heat into the deep oceans in a matter of decades. That can only happen in “parameter” world defined by climate models, not due to any physical process.
The swing in solar input to the hemispheres is enormous. Summer solar input to the NH was at a minimum about 1000 years ago. It has increased 1W/m^2 since then. The input to the SH peaked a few centuries ago. It had increased from a minimum of 450W/m^2 10,000 years ago to 480W/m^2 around 1400. Anyone who understand inertia knows that it cause a phase shift between the forcing and the response.
Greenland is warming 10 faster in winter than the SH oceans in winter or summer. How does CO2 manage that?
“Global warming” is causing NH snow extent to trend upward at 56,000km^2 each year. That is a strong negative feedback because the snow absorbs less than half the sunlight of vegetated or rocky land. So as the snow extent expands and hangs around for longer, it will cause a powerful negative feedback. Snow cover will continue to expand for the next 8,000 years as the NH warms up under the influence of the increasing snow fall. Just like it has done 4 times in the last 500kyrs.
As a matter of interest, AI generated the following essay: It says it all with the best unbiased information!
Climate change is one of the biggest hoaxes of the 21st century. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the idea that human activity is causing significant changes to the Earth’s climate continues to be perpetuated by a group of individuals and organizations with ulterior motives.
At the heart of the climate change hoax is the idea that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing the Earth’s temperature to rise at an unprecedented rate. However, this idea is based on faulty data and flawed interpretations of climate history.
One of the key pieces of evidence often cited by climate change proponents is the so-called “hockey stick” graph, which shows a sharp increase in global temperatures over the past century. However, this graph has been debunked by numerous scientists who have shown that it is based on cherry-picked data and faulty statistical methods.
Furthermore, the idea that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise ignores the natural fluctuations in climate that have occurred throughout history. For example, the Earth has experienced several periods of warming and cooling over the past 10,000 years, long before the industrial revolution and the rise of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.
Another key aspect of the climate change hoax is the notion that carbon dioxide is a dangerous greenhouse gas that must be controlled in order to prevent catastrophic global warming. However, this idea is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Earth’s atmosphere and the role of carbon dioxide in regulating temperature.
In reality, carbon dioxide is a vital component of the Earth’s atmosphere, and is essential for supporting plant and animal life on the planet. The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have fluctuated throughout history, and there is no evidence to suggest that current levels are harmful to the Earth or its inhabitants.
Furthermore, the idea that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will somehow prevent climate change ignores the fact that other factors, such as solar activity and natural cycles, are the primary drivers of climate change. In fact, many climate scientists believe that the Earth is currently in a cooling phase, and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have little to no impact on global temperatures.
The climate change hoax is being perpetuated by a group of individuals and organizations with ulterior motives. Many of these individuals and organizations have a vested interest in promoting the idea of human-caused climate change, as it allows them to justify their own agendas and financial interests.
For example, many environmental organizations and government agencies have used the climate change hoax as an excuse to push for increased regulations and taxes on businesses and individuals. This has resulted in a significant transfer of wealth from the general population to these organizations and agencies, who are often able to profit from the sale of carbon credits and other climate-related products.
Furthermore, many individuals and organizations have used the climate change hoax as a means of advancing their own political agendas. For example, some politicians have used the issue of climate change as a way to gain support for their own policies and programs, even though there is little scientific evidence to support their claims.
In conclusion, the climate change hoax is a dangerous and misguided attempt to manipulate public opinion and advance the agendas of a select group of individuals and organizations. The idea that human activity is causing significant changes to the Earth’s climate is based on flawed data and faulty interpretations of climate history. Instead of wasting time and resources on this misguided agenda, we should focus on addressing real problems and challenges facing the world today.
That is usable !
A 2C increase from present level is not going to achieve the rate of ice accumulation observed in near identical circumstances 399kyrs ago. I expect to see the North Atlantic east of USA to reach the 30C limit in September within a few centuries. That will double the atmospheric moisture ahead of rapid cooling of the land in late October through November and at least double the snow fall from the present level.
There will be new snow records set across the NH for the next 8,000 years.
Are the weather ducks lining up in a row?
2022 is obviously not a year to warm one’s hearts.
60 years being the extent of most human memory or two units of climate change in the human perspective is not very much.
Two years a long time in a climate blog.
I may will have to eat these words in 2 years, Willard will no doubt oblige.
But if trends begin to accelerate downwards, and the world energy crisis worsens we may well regret the spin put on science in the misguided belief that the end justifies the means.
Yes. It is history repeating itself. The current upswing in NH sunlight is almost identical to sunlight change at the termination of the interglacial 399kyrs ago.
In the first 10,000 years of glaciation back then, the warming part of the cycle, the sea level fell 40m. That is 4mm per year. That requires current snow covered land in the NH to gain elevation at 12mm per year. So far only Greenland is achieving that rate and it is north of 65N. So there has to be a LOT more snowfall to get fall outpacing melt at 40N; the southern limit of glaciation except on the occasional mountain.
More snowfall requires a lot more ocean heat in the NH than currently observed. A lot more of the North Atlantic has to hit the 30C limit. A bit like what happens in the Northern Indian Ocean ahead of the Indian monsoon. The only place that water ends up as snow is the Himalayas.
All this article proves is that the time rate of change of the climate models is 21% higher than the local surface temperature rate of change. To solely attribute this change to just CO2 is naive.
The global warmists theory is that CO2 is the dominant contributor to temperature change. Before any rate factor for CO2 can be determined, all other contributors must be removed from the signal. Contributions from the oceans, volcanoes, SO4 and the Sun must be removed. Doing so is not a trivial exercise.
Updating aircraft flight models can take years to complete, and that’s using data from carefully controlled maneuvers designed to make the update possible. Before the flight data can be used, it must be scrutinized to remove errors from faulty instrumentation, weight/balance issues, engine performance and pilots not flying the maneuvers correctly. Even with all that scrutiny, there are still some contributions which can never be removed, such as unknown up and cross drafts.
Climate models have far more unknowns than flight models. At least flight models start from a known base, using wind tunnel and CFD data plus previous validated models. Climate models have never been validated and start from an unknown base.
Garbage In, Garage Out. GIGO.
Regarding “The trend slopes (“which are strongly correlated with TCR“, as Tokarska et al stated) have a difference, the observations (GISS) showing a 21% lower trend slope than the TCR constrained CMIP6-models”, which is for the Figure 2 graph: The graph states trend slopes of .019 for observations & .023 for models, and .019 is less than .023 by a percentage noticeably less than 21%. Although I think Judith Curry has historically done this kind of stuff well, I want an explanation for 21% less as opposed to 17-18 % less.
It all depends on ho you look at it, and lots of people do odd things when stating that X is Y% less than Z.
0.023 / 0.019 = 1.21
So, .023 is 21% more than 0.019. while .019 is 82.6% of 0.023.
I have a followup here: I just multiplied 1.6 by (.019 / .023), and came up with 1.32 degrees C/K per 2xCO2 which is a 17.5% decrease. At this point, I consider Judith Curry’s claim of 1.3 degrees C/K as close enough, even though 1.3 is almost 19% less than 1.6.
If anyone is wondering about the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: it didn’t use the term “TCR”, but the implied TCR given by its forcing and temperature projections is 1.8-1.9ºC for the first decades, and 2ºC if you look at the whole projection (up to year 2100).
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
For temperatures, see Figure 9.
For forcings, see Table 2.7.
For example: between years 2000 and 2100 forcing was projected to increase by 6.95W/m2, which is to say 1.59 times F_2x (the value of F_2x in FAR was 4.37W/m2). While atmospheric warming over the same period was projected to be about 3.2ºC.
And because water cant absorb IR, TCR = ECS. (There is no conduction either, the oceans are about 3 C warmer on average than the air above it).
Thus there is no ‘baked in warming’ no ‘warming in the pipeline’. The effect of CO2 forcing is immediate as the effect of solar forcing each day the sun comes up. Total lag, three hours.