JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

New Science 18: Finally climate sensitivity calculated at just one tenth of official estimates.

Reflected solar radiation, emitted heat radiation, NASA, climate sensitivity, greenhouse gases

Image: NASA

In years to come it may be recognized that this blog post produced the first modeled accurate figure for climate sensitivity. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity sounds dry, but it’s the driving theme, the holy grail of climate science. The accurate figure (whatever it is) summarizes the whole entirety of  carbon dioxide’s atmospheric importance. That number determines whether we are headed for a champagne picnic or a baking apocalypse.

To calculate a better estimate, David identified the flaws of the conventional basic model, and rebuilt it. The basic climate model is the top-down approach looking at inputs and outputs of the whole system. It defines the culture and textbooks of the modern global warming movement. GCMs (the big hairy coupled global models) are bottom-up approaches, doomed to failure by trying to add up every detail and ending up drowning in mile-high uncertainty bands. But the GCMs are ultimately tweaked to arrive at a similar ballpark climate sensitivity as the textbook model for the “basic physics” dictates. Hence this core model is where the debate needs to be. (Everyone knows the GCMs are broken.)

For decades the world of conventional climate research has been stuck in a groundhog day with major research overturning older ideas, but somehow the upper and lower bounds of climate sensitivity stayed the same. It’s always 1.5 – 4.5 deg C (and their models never work). Their “best” estimates of climate sensitivity are relentlessly, slowly shrinking (they were around 3.5°, now around 2°C). The new alternative model doesn’t rely on the bizarre idea that all feedbacks can only operate off the surface. The alternative model (we are going to have to come up with a better name) allows feedbacks to act differently for different warming influences, and thus energy can reroute from one outgoing “pipe” to another.

The river of energy is flowing to space. If we put a rock in the way, the flow just reroutes around it.

In the “…nameless..;-).” alternative model, Evans uses the same physics but better architecture and a few more empirical data points, and we can finally estimate what the true climate sensitivity must be.

Donate to independent science. Thanks! ..
We could really use your help.
This research is only possible
thanks to people like you.

Because the “pipes” for outgoing radiation to space are elastic, and can adapt to increases in energy, the climate sensitivity to CO2 could be very low. Indeed it is not possible to put a lower bound on the figure — it may be almost zero. It is possible to put an upper bound on it — which is about half a degree. The most likely estimate is around 0.25°C. Empirical estimates by Lindzen and Choi,[1][2] Spencer and Braswell[3][4] and Idso[5] suggest it is 0.4°C – 0.7°C. We can  argue the toss between 0.25 and 0.5, but no one can argue that we need to spend a single dollar to reduce our emissions if doubling CO2 only causes minor and beneficial warming.

What is striking is how small the changes need to be to compensate for “all that extra CO2″. The effect of the increased CO2 of the last few decades was neutralized if the height of the cloud tops or the water vapor emissions layer fell by just a few tens of meters. These changes are so small they are hard to detect, but there are empirical observations that suggest both may have occurred to some degree. The small changes required show just how easy it would be for the atmosphere to emit a constant energy flow, regardless of a blockage in one “pipe”.

DEFINITION: The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the surface warming ΔTS when the CO2 concentration doubles and the other drivers are unchanged. Note that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so each doubling or fraction thereof has the same effect on surface warming.

–  Jo

 

...

18. Calculating the ECS Using the Alternative Model

Dr David Evans, 5 November 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.

This post employs the alternative model to quantitatively analyze the climate of the last few decades, estimating the CO2 sensitivity (λC), the fraction of global warming due to increasing CO2 (μ), and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The formulas for these quantities were derived in post 16.

Here is the spreadsheet with the alternative model and the numerical calculations in this post: download (Excel, 250 KB).

Simple Case

We first explore the “simple case”. It ignores the complications of the minor albedo feedback (see Fig. 1 of post 13), so that the surface warming due to increased ASR (ΔTS,A) and thus the outgoing longwave radiation (the OLR, R), are independent of the CO2 concentration (recall that the effect of CO2 is to redistribute OLR between the pipes, not to reduce it overall once steady state is resumed — it’s only reduced in the CO2 pipe). It also ignores changes in the ozone and methane layers, and changes to the lapse rate and clouds. It is defined by

What is left is a simple trade-off between what are, presumably, the main influences — the change in height of the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL), and the change in CO2 concentration — on surface warming.

In the simple case the joint model equation (Eq. (4) of post 16) becomes just

The variables are the surface warming ΔTS, the increase in height of the WVEL ΔhW, the CO2 sensitivity λC, and the base-2 logarithm of the relative change in CO2 concentration ΔL. All the other quantities are constants whose values have been estimated.

- CO2 Constant

During a period of constant CO2, ΔL is zero so

The WVEL ascends with surface warming and descends when the surface cools, because only the solar response is active. For example, if the surface warms by 1.0 °C due to TSI or EDA changes then the radiating temperature increases by ~0.5 °C (Fig. 1 of post 13) and the WVEL ascends by ~150 meters. Or if the WVEL descends by 100 meters then the associated surface cooling is ~0.65 °C and the drop in radiating temperature is ~0.33 °C. (The details of the calculations are in the spreadsheet.)

- CO2 Doubles

During a period when CO2 doubles, ΔL is one so

The surface warming due to CO2 is, by definition, the ECS. It is equal to μΔTS, where μ is the fraction of the warming that was caused by the CO2 increase. It is also equal to λCDR,2X (see Fig. 1 of post 13). Using these two relationships to replace ΔTS and λC by ECS/μ and ECS/DR,2X respectively in Eq. (4), after a little re-arrangement we get

φ depends on μ and some constants. For a given value of μ, and thus φ, the ECS is linear in ΔhW. (“φ” is the Greek letter “phi”, which is written a little differently in the Eq. (5) — as a circle with a slanted line through it. Fonts!)

The greater the ECS, the more the WVEL must ascend to provide sufficient water vapor amplification during the doubling of CO2. Conversely, the more the WVEL ascended while the CO2 doubled, the more the water vapor amplification and the higher the ECS must be.

If one supposes that μ is ~80% (inspired perhaps by Table TS.6 of the Technical Summary in AR5, which says that CO2 provided ~80% of the change in radiative forcing since 1750) then

This is the green line in Fig. 1 below. For instance if the ECS is 3.0 °C (the green cross in Fig. 1), then the WVEL ascends by ~800 m, or ~10% of its current ~8 km, during the period in which the CO2 concentration doubles — which might be from 1800 to 2080.

However, the conclusion of post 17 was that the WVEL did not ascend during the period of rapid warming from 1979 to 1999, and given the pause it cannot have ascended from 1999 to 2015. Given that there was a large increase in CO2 over this 36 year period, it would appear that the WVEL descends as part of the CO2 response, that is, in response to increasing CO2 the WVEL descends, even though it ascends in response to surface warming.

With ΔhW ≤ 0, by Eq. (6) the ECS cannot exceed ~1.0 °C. But  an ECS of only 1.0 °C is insufficient to explain 80% of the recent warming — there has been about 0.83 °C surface warming just from 1900 to 2013 (HadCrut4, 5 year centered smoothing), that period saw about log2(397/296) or 42% of a CO2 doubling, so the warming due to CO2 should be 42% of the ECS or 0.42 °C due to CO2, but that only accounts for 0.42/0.83 or 51% of the observed warming, well short of the supposed 80%.  Therefore μ must be lower.

Lowering μ to say 50%,

so if the WVEL has not ascended then the ECS is constrained to be less than 0.8°C, which is still not enough to explain 50% of the recent warming. And so on, as the proposed solution works it way down and left from the green cross towards the orange and red crosses in Figure 1.

 

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), water vapor emissions layer (WVEL) ascent, and warming-causation-fraction.

Figure 1: For a given warming-causation-fraction μ, the ECS is linear in the WVEL ascent (Eq. (5)). The green cross marks the center of the IPCC position (AR5); the red and orange crosses mark the approximate position of this post (estimated below). If the WVEL is not ascending because the WVEL descends due to the CO2 response (post 17), then the ECS must be less than 1.2 °C even if all the recent warming is due to increasing CO2 (μ =1) — but an ECS of 1.2 °C is insufficient to explain all of the recent warming, so μ < 1.

- Recent Decades

In recent decades there are periods whose endpoints are without undue volcanic interference, when we can estimate the surface warming ΔTS and the logarithmic increase in CO2 concentration ΔL, and bound the ascend of the WVEL ΔhW. We assume the climate has stayed sufficiently close to steady state through recent decades to apply Eq. (2), from which the CO2 sensitivity is estimated as

Then we can apply Eq.s (6) and (7) in post 16, for the fraction μ of global warming due to increasing CO2 and for the ECS. Estimates for several scenarios are shown in Table 1:

Scenario Start End  ΔTS  ΔC  ΔhW  λC  μ ECS
°C ppm m °C W−1 m2 % °C
A1 1973 2011 0.514 62 0 0.13 24 0.50
A2 1973 2011 0.514 62 25 0.26 47 0.96
A3 1973 2011 0.514 62 −25 0.01   1 0.03
B1 1948 2011 0.488 81 0 0.25 64 0.93
B2 1948 2011 0.488 81 50 0.44 111 1.63
B3 1948 2011 0.488 81 −50 0.06 16 0.23
D1 1973 2001 0.400 41 0 0.08 12 0.28
D2 1973 2006 0.475 52 0 0.10 16 0.37
D3 1963 2011 0.456 73 0 0.24 57 0.88
D4 1968 2011 0.458 69 0 0.22 49 0.80
D5 1978 2011 0.434 57 0 0.16 31 0.59
D6 1983 2011 0.428 49 0 0.10 17 0.39

Table 1: Simple-case scenarios. The A and B scenarios match the period of radiosonde data back to 1973 (more reliable) and 1948 (less reliable), during which the radiosondes indicate the WVEL did not ascend: the effect of several values of WVEL ascent are shown. Surface warming averages UAH and HadCrut4, both 5-year smoothed. CO2 from Mauna Loa (Law Dome prior to 1959). Details and more scenarios in the spreadsheet.

The estimate of ECS for the period of more reliable radiosonde data, from 1973, is 0.5 °C if the WVEL stayed at the same height (A1). But if the WVEL ascended 25 m the ECS would have to be 0.96 °C (A2), while if the WVEL fell 25 m then the ECS must be less than 0.1°C (A3)– which demonstrates how important the WVEL is to climate sensitivity.

In the last few decades, CO2 has been steadily increasing, while temperature moved around. Our emission-layer data is not good enough to track OLR, so a range of ECS estimates is unavoidable. However the radiosondes point to a slightly falling WVEL, which unambiguously implies that the ECS is much lower than conventionally believed and that the rising CO2 concentration was not the main factor warming the surface.

Full Case

The full case uses climate data from recent decades in Eq.s (5), (6), and (7) of post 16 to estimate the CO2 sensitivity λC, the fraction of warming due to CO2 μ, and the ECS. The climate data is insufficient to form good estimates, but is sufficient to draw interesting conclusions. The data concerning the climate parameters are considered below, and then various combinations of parameter values are evaluated in several scenarios.

- WVEL Height Bounds the ECS

WVEL height was discussed in post 17 on the hotspot, in the section entitled “The WVEL Has Not Ascended in the Last Few Decades”. While we do not know how its height varied over time, merely knowing that the WVEL descended produces a useful upper bound:

    • Radiosonde temperature and humidity data and the best satellite data on upper troposphere shows the WVEL descended (Eq. (2) of post 17):

    • So by the definition of the ECS as ΔTS.C when ΔL is one,

 

- Cloud Height

Davies and Molloy (2012) [6] report a decrease in the global effective height of cloud tops from March 2000 to February 2010, using the Multiangle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) on the Terra satellite. The linear trend was of −44 ± 22 m/decade; the difference between the first and last years was −31 ± 11 m. The annual mean height is measured with a sampling error of 8 m. Detected regional height anomalies correlate well with changes in the Southern Oscillation Index.

However Evan and Norris (2012)[7] claim that the decrease reported by the MISR is an artifact due to a systematic reduction in the number of retrievals of clouds at lower elevations during the early years of the MISR mission, apparently due to “satellite orbit inclination maneuvers” causing “erroneous co-registration of the nine MISR cameras”. But they also note that “there is no obvious reason why the camera co-registration issues should affect cloud height retrievals at one height in the atmosphere more or less strongly than retrievals at another height in the atmosphere.” Using a post-hoc method for removing the bias, they report an ascending trend of +54 m/decade, which agrees with the MODIS-Terra data showing increasing cloud height of  +61 m/decade. The MODIS-Terra cloud height data is of distinctly lesser quality than the MISR for measuring cloud top height; both begin in 2000.

There does not appear to be any other cloud height data of note. Unfortunately the cloud height data is conflicted, and is after the period of warming from the 1970s to the 1990s. We explore both ascending and descending cloud-top scenarios below.

- Lapse Rate

The published radiosonde data on lapse rate trends only seems to extend to 700 hPa. Behavior in the upper troposphere might be quite different (Fig. 4 of post 17). Gaffen et. al. (2000)[8] report that observed surface-to-700-hPa lapse rates fluctuated less than 1.5% either way about an average value from 1960 to 1998, and there might have been no overall trend (the trend might have decreased from 1960 to 1979 then increased from 1979 to 1998).

In lieu of empirical data on changes in lapse rate, we estimate it from the lapse rate feedback fLR of −0.6±0.4 W m−2 °C−1 from AR5 (post 3, just before Eq. (10)). Though this feedback is only for the solar response, we assume it applies for any surface warming because it is intended as such, the effect is theoretically relatively straightforward, and we have no better information. Assuming a uniformly changing lapse rate as per the conventional model, the extra OLR due to a change in average lapse rate of ΔΓ is −ΔTSfLR from the lapse rate feedback (the negative sign arises because the feedback gives the increase in net downward flux), while it is guniformΔΓ by the OLR model, so

To apply this in the alternative model, we assume the lapse rate only changes in the lower troposphere, in line with the radiosonde data: the increase in OLR due to lapse rate changes is estimated to be gpartialΔΓ.

- Cloud Fraction

The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project indicates that the cloud fraction rose by ~2% from 1984 to 1987, then fell ~4% to 2000, and then rose ~0.5% to 2010. Marchand (2012) [9] reports cloud fraction from 2001 to 2011 as measured by MISR rising ~0.1% and by MODIS-Terra and MODIS-Aqua rising ~0.3%. The total change from 1984 to 2010 was ~−1.5% according to the ISCCP but that is exaggerated by a factor of 2 to 4 by comparison to MISR and MODIS over 2001 to 2011, so perhaps the cloud fraction fell by ~0.5% from 1984 to 2011. There does not seem to be prior data.

- Scenarios

Table 2 shows several scenarios. In any scenario, the CO2 sensitivity λC, the fraction of global warming caused by CO2 μ, and the ECS must all be positive, which constrains the input values.

Scenario Start End  ΔTS  ΔC  ΔhW ΔhU ΔΓ Δβ ΔhM λC  μ ECS ΔR
°C ppm m m °C km−1 % m °C W−1m2 % °C W m-2
A4 1973 2011 0.514 62.0 0 0 -0.023 -0.50 0 -0.11 -20 -0.42 1.16
A5 1973 2011 0.444 62.0 0 0 -0.020 -0.25 0 0.02 4 0.07 0.80
A6 1973 2011 0.514 62.0 -25 100 -0.023 -0.50 0 0.03 5 0.11 0.91
A7 1973 2011 0.514 62.0 0 200 -0.023 -0.50 0 0.42 76 1.57 0.23
B4 1948 2011 0.488 81.0 0 0 -0.022 -0.50 0 0.07 18 0.27 0.75
B5 1948 2011 0.488 81.0 0 200 -0.022 -0.50 0 0.47 120 1.75 -0.18
C1 2000 2010 0.045 21.0 0 -42 -0.002 0.20 0 0.19 125 0.71 -0.02
C2 2000 2010 0.045 21.0 0 -20 -0.002 0.20 0 0.38 246 1.39 -0.12
C3 2000 2010 0.045 21.0 0 54 -0.002 0.20 0 0.99 653 3.68 -0.47
C4 2000 2010 0.045 21.0 0 61 -0.002 0.20 0 1.05 691 3.90 -0.50
C5 2000 2010 0.045 21.0 -18 -31 -0.002 0.20 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.08
C6 2000 2010 0.045 21.0 -50 50 -0.002 0.20 0 0.18 115 0.65 -0.01

Table 2: Full-case scenarios. As per Tbl. 1. The C scenarios are for the period of cloud-top height data.

The C scenarios are for 2000 to 2010, where we have cloud-top height data (though the period is very short for a model that simulates transitions between steady states). Suppose the WVEL remained at the same height. If the cloud tops descended between 42 and 20 m as per the MISR observations, the ECS is likely between 0.7 and 1.4 °C, and μ is from 125% to 250% (C1, C2). But if the cloud tops ascended between 54 and 61 m in line with the MODIS observations, then the ECS is ~3.8 °C and μ is ~650% (so high because the CO2 warming is much larger than the warming that actually occurred, which requires the existence of an unknown cooling influence that does not affect ASR) (C3, C4). The unrealistically high values of μ suggest that the cloud-tops more likely descended than ascended and that the MISR observations are more likely to be correct. If the WVEL descended then estimates of μ  and ECS decrease: a MISR-average cloud-top descent of 31 m and a WVEL descent of 18 m requires an ECS of zero (C5). A WVEL descent of ~50 m is required to bring μ down to ~100% if the cloud tops rose ~50 m (C6).

In the A scenarios with the better radiosonde data from 1973 to 2011, there is cloud fraction data from 1984, but no cloud top height data before 2000. If the cloud tops do not ascend (in line with their probable behavior after 2000), the WVEL does not ascend (as per the radiosondes), and the cloud fraction change was ~−0.5% (in line with observations from 1984), then the ECS estimate is negative (A4). The ECS must be positive, so this indicates that on the basis of the most likely changes the ECS is very small, putting no lower bound on the estimate. Perhaps the pre-satellite warming and the cloud fraction change were exaggerated two-fold: this would increase μ to ~4% and the ECS estimate to ~0.07 °C (A5). Even if the cloud tops ascended 100 m (twice the MODIS figures for 2000 to 2010), and the WVEL descended 25 m,  is ~0.03, μ is ~5% and the ECS is ~0.1 °C (A6). If the cloud tops rose by 200 m (difficult to reconcile with the MISR observations, particularly as the clouds tops average only ~3.3 km) and the WVEL did not change, estimates approach the conventional: μ ~76% and ECS ~1.6 °C (A7).

The longest scenarios are the B scenarios, back to 1948 but with less-reliable or missing data. If the WVEL and cloud tops remained at the same heights, and cloud fraction changed by ~−0.5% (the net change observed from 1984 to 2011), then λC is ~0.07, μ is ~18%, and the ECS is ~0.27 °C (B4).

- Conclusions

There is no strong basis in the data for favoring any scenario in particular, but the A4, A5, A6, and B4 scenarios are the ones that best reflect the input data over longer periods. Hence we conclude that:

  • The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.
  • The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, μ,is likely less than 20%.
  • The CO2 sensitivity, λC, is likely less than 0.15 °C W−1 m2 (less than a third of the solar sensitivity).

Given a descending WVEL, it is difficult to construct a scenario consistent with the observed data in which the influence of CO2 is greater than this.

 

References

[1^] Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705 [abstract, PDF]

[2^] Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]

[3^] Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109

[4^] Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]

[5^] Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82. [abstract] [Discussion]

[6^] Davies, R., & Molloy, M. (2012). Global cloud height fluctuations measured by MISR on Terra from 2000 to 2010. Geophysical Research Letters, L03701.

[7^] Evan, A. T., & Norris, J. R. (2012). On global changes in effective cloud height. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L19710.

[8^] Gaffen, D. J., Santer, B. D., Boyle, J. S., Christy, J. R., Graham, N. E., & Ross, R. J. (2000). Multidecadal Changes in the Vertical Temperature Structure of the Tropical Troposphere. Science, Vol 287, 1242-1245.

[9^] Marchand, R. (2012). Trends in ISCCP, MISR, and MODIS cloud-top-height and optical-depth histograms. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50207.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (97 votes cast)
New Science 18: Finally climate sensitivity calculated at just one tenth of official estimates. , 9.2 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/q8ynp6w

200 comments to New Science 18: Finally climate sensitivity calculated at just one tenth of official estimates.

  • #
    Scott Bowman

    Hi,

    I am just a reader of JoNova but I wish to thank you and Jo for your efforts to bring some sanity to the world. The technical side of your posts is beyond me but the findings and message are clear.

    I use your work to educate my children as the education system is a mess and over run with warmist propaganda.

    From my end, I talk to anyone I can about the Climate Change lie and refer them to the JoNova site and well as WUWT.

    Thank you from myself and my family.

    Scott

    721

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Me too Scott.

      I am sure that the vast majority of us on this site are in awe at what David (with Jo’s incredible help) has achieved over this stunning series. Even those of us like Scott and myself, who have no hope of following the mathematics, have been able to follow the thrust of what David is showing.

      It is groundbreaking, helps to explain the ‘hiatus’, and completely blows away the conventional models.

      David and Jo need help, not the least financial, to ensure this work progresses, so COME ON YOU BLOGGERS, GO TO THE TIP JAR AND SEND JO AND DAVID SOME ‘CHOCOLATES’,

      110

  • #
    Popeye26

    David/Jo,

    So now to get the message out and shouted from the hilltops.

    What is the plan in regards to this?

    I’m lost in the maths but certain that you will one day be recognised for bringing some truth and reality to the assumptions that, so far, have missed by that much a LOT.

    Congrats David & Jo – you deserve every credit that will be coming your way after such a long time and a lot of tireless months of work.

    Cheers,

    320

    • #

      Not as easy as you might imagine Popeye.

      The establishment climate scientists don’t want to know about it, obviously. There is a strong not-invented-here syndrome among established skeptics; herding cats is easier. The media have been trained that skeptics are know-nothings in the pay of big oil, and are only to be mocked and discredited. The message is too complex for your average punter or politician. The ground has been poisoned by countless vacuous claims of having “solved” climate change. We have next to no resources.

      From the introductory post:

      The findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment, and maybe nor with some established skeptics. Rebuilding paradigms is always painful. As J.K. Galbraith said in The Affluent Society, “We face here the greatest of vested interests, those of the mind.” Some old dogs will resent learning the new tricks. Career skeptics have their theories, their track records and preferences, and not all of them are compatible with this new material, though most are. If they expend hours examining or put their credibility on the line endorsing someone else’s ideas, what’s in it for them? Nothing really. The usual quid pro quo of the academic scientific world does not apply. Some will be annoyed they didn’t think of it (and didn’t we see shades of that last year, when the notch-delay solar theory was introduced?). All contributions will be carefully acknowledged and credited. We’d rather do this as a team than battle alone.

      “get the message out and shouted from the hilltops”. How?

      541

      • #
        ianl8888

        Yes


        There is a strong not-invented-here syndrome among established skeptics; herding cats is easier

        That is what motivated the comments on Bishop Hill, Lucia, Motl etc. I described it previously as inverted snobbery, but in fact I think it’s really just another version of the age-old human foibles of envy/vanity

        The WVEL movement in the vertical plane appeals to me more and more as I think about it, as the calculus for it is empirically based

        Is it possible for you to feed this explanation into the wax and wane of glacial Epochs ? (It’s quite clear that some factor or factors goes wildly out of wack during those changes). I had believed the Milankovitch cycles were sufficient but it seems the last and biggest of these Epoch has no Milankovitch associated with it

        181

        • #

          Ian, I am reluctant to use the model other than for minor perturbations from the current climate, because we have no idea of the WVEL or cloud top heights otherwise. Maybe someone who knows about those remote times can think of a reason for a change in the balance of emitter heights, but it would be hard to prove.

          Yes, the calculus of fiddling with emittance heights and temperatures can explain a lot.

          210

          • #
            ianl8888

            OK

            So do you have a specific prediction you would care to risk your model’s reputation on ?

            [Of course, preferably one I won't have to outlive Methusala to see tested]

            50

            • #

              Ian, we’ll be making a specific prediction later in this series.

              210

              • #
                climateskeptic

                Hi, interested to know what the predictions of your model are. Any model is only as good as it ability to predict.

                40

              • #

                climateskeptic, if the ECS is 0 to 0.5 degC then each time the CO2 concentration doubles the warning due to the increased CO2 will be between 0 and 0.5 deg C. The first doubling will from pre-industrial will be around 2080, so the prediction is that between 1800 and 2080 the warming due to CO2 will be about 0 to 0.5 degC.

                Obviously the global surface temperature is determined predominately by something else. We will be getting to that next in the series, and we will make a prediction about it.

                230

      • #
        Robk

        It’s at times like these we find out what friends and influence you have garnered over the many years. I and I’m sure the majority of your readership will be pulling all stops to highlight your exposure. Many may not be able to do much, some well known philanthropists maybe more but we can all dig deep and salute Jo’s Tip-jar.

        230

        • #
          Robk

          I’ve saluted the tip jar. It’s not a large amount, about the same as a concert ticket last week. Hopefully many more tips will make a difference. I feel indebted still for all the work you both have shown us all. I was motivated to brush up on maths, that’s no small feat on it’s own. It’s been very entertaining and engaging and I thank you both.

          200

      • #
        Pauly

        Actually, from my point of view, the strong independent and critical stances are what is convincing about the skeptic side of the debate.

        The people who are invested in the idea that they are smarter than other people and therefore should be allowed to control the universe (examples Keynsian economists, environmentalists, etc.) are the ones who insist that everybody should sing from the same songbook. They are the ones invested in The Big Idea ™ and who cannot tolerate any ideas that do not fit their narrative.

        It’s by fighting and arguing amongst ourselves that proves the validity of our case. By accepting that we are fallible and capable of making errors gives us the capacity to correct errors.

        Noses get put out of joint, egos get bruised but its what happens when people are scrambling and fighting for the truth. The side that insists on blind devotion might do well in the short term, but historically they always fail because they lack the capacity to self correct. Certainly the media class seems to be far more impressed by homogenity of a facade than the facts that lie beneath, but as recent opinion polls show the genuine public eventually see through the facade, and do so much quicker than the media.

        400

        • #

          Pauly November 5, 2015 at 7:11 pm

          “It’s by fighting and arguing amongst ourselves that proves the validity of our case. By accepting that we are fallible and capable of making errors gives us the capacity to correct errors.”

          I agree! David well puts together the case that the CCC does not know of what the 97% think they know!

          “Noses get put out of joint, egos get bruised but its what happens when people are scrambling and fighting for the truth. The side that insists on blind devotion might do well in the short term, but historically they always fail because they lack the capacity to self correct.”

          The skeptics however demonstrate that at least they know that ‘they do not know’!! This kind of acceptance of limitation is the only way to learn in any field. Just ‘who’ is starting to to display some intelligence and integrity? ;-)

          300

          • #
            Mike

            Nice !!

            “they know that ‘they do not know’!!”

            100

          • #
            Tom O

            Yes, they do know that they do not know. As I have said many times, Science is the search for truth, Science is NOT knowing the truth. And that is truth. There is no such thing as an iron clad rule – there is ALWAYS the “possibility” of something that doesn’t fit it. Which is why “consensus” science is always a failure in the long run.

            180

          • #
            Alexander

            I can’t help but chuckle that one of the key inspirations for my earlier comment in New Science 17 has, in perhaps an unconscious moderation of his gadfly personna, reiterated one of my key points.

            Also, appearing coincidentally this very day, is an article in Nautilus, about the dynamics of failure in life at large, and in science in particular:

            Why Scientists Need To Fail Better
            The rush for success is driving science into a corner, apart from wider culture.

            Needless to say, it would be very advantageous for the climate-science “community” to undertake some self-examination about how it deals with failure — in particular in how it deals with science failures driven by its politicization.

            100

        • #

          Pauly, you’ve put your finger on our greatest strength.

          The only thing I would add is that we need to keep a clear line between rigorous skepticism (and disagreement which is good) and “fighting”, which I see as pointless ego bashes. The blood sport is unnecessary, burns off volunteers, and rarely contributes anything constructive.

          Ad hom attacks, namecalling and bullying merely shout down the quieter voices in any debate, and we need all the brains, not just the loudest and most aggressive. Perhaps the next genius idea will come from an underconfident, unassuming type.

          Which is why I rarely, and only with reluctance, devote time to criticizing skeptics.

          Just as civilization needs science.
          Science (as a human pursuit) needs civility.

          Good old fashioned manners still matter.

          210

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            I watched a doco on History channel about the establishment of prohibition in the US in 1920.
            I was struck by a couple of ideas.
            One was the comment that “The case for prohibition was driven by religion, which is the most powerful force imaginable to drive a notion.”
            The other comment was the argument put forward by the Temperance League was absolute. “They would have put Christ in jail for turning water into wine”. Absolutism means no middle ground. “you are either for us or against us”.
            It occurred to me that the environmental movement has followed this playbook. Make Gaia into a god and make environmentalism a religion. Make it an absolute “you either BELIEVE that mankind is killing the planet or you don’t. There is no half way.”
            I suppose that should not be a revelation. However, it struck me that it defines what we are up against.

            20

          • #
            Mark Stoval

            “The blood sport is unnecessary, burns off volunteers, and rarely contributes anything constructive.” ~ Jo

            I observed a fellow who normally posts at WUWT go after Dr. Evens some time back as if it were blood sport. He did not fare well with the regulars here. I was pleased by that. I also vowed never to read another post by such an a##hole. I have kept my promise to myself.

            I believe in the fullness of time we will find out that CO2 does very little in the lower atmosphere and radiates to space in the upper atmosphere. I also think that the net overall effect is of cooling not warming. As you can imagine, there are very famous skeptic sites that don’t want to hear that message. Egos can get in the way on both sides of the issue!

            20

      • #
        FIN

        “get the message out and shouted from the hilltops”. How?

        I reckon submitting it for peer review would be a good start. If it passes that process it will be adopted by the main stream science and you can proceed forthwith to pick up your Nobel prize.
        If this is groundbreaking it will sell itself. If not it will disappear without trace. No point submitting it for blog review, as Popeye admits he wouldn’t know if it was correct or not.

        226

        • #

          FIN, it has already been submitted to a peer review, as mentioned in the Introduction. You have a touching naivety about how climate science works — please read the Introduction.

          331

          • #
            Richard

            Great stuff. But what journal is this likely to be published in? Let’s face it – no genuinely impartial, open-minded and independent scientific researchers would be allowed to publish their politically uncongenial results in the established medical journals such as The Lancet or Nature. The politically-controlled peer review system would see to that. I can already imagine Skpetical Science and co saying that these conclusions are ‘meaningless’ because it wasn’t published in a ‘respected journal’.

            231

        • #
          Vlad the Impaler

          Greetings FIN:

          Earlier in the series, I suggested that The Evans Model (my name for it — let’s go with it!) is getting far more review, critique, analysis, and, ultimately, improvement, than it ever would get from the “standard” scientific community. At best, a paper may receive reviews from three or four other individuals, and often as few as two. Here, the model is being looked at (with an aim to find it’s flaws, BTW) by engineers, geologists, meteorologists, chemists, physicists … … and unlike the ‘pal review’ system in place today, Dr. Evans is changing and revising his work. If you had seen the initial ‘notch-delay’ model, you would know that some highly technical flaws were found in it by the very same people who are now looking at this idea, with an eye towards finding what is ‘wrong’ with it, so that those errors can be corrected.

          Given the state of ‘pal review’ in the mainstream “scientific” literature today, I think you’ll find this is far more rigorous, and ultimately, a quantum leap in the understanding of the “effect” of CO2 on Earth climate (approximately zilch — – that’s the technical term for it). We can see this in the geological record, if you’d ever care to take a look at it.

          Not that you’ll be the first to refuse to acknowledge what 750 m.a. of record shows us … … …

          Regards,

          Vlad

          261

          • #
            Harry Passfield

            For want of a name for the “new model”, the Latin appeals – for obvious reasons:

            Exemplar Nova

            100

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Yes; Jo we need a thread dedicated to naming the Evans model.

            I was thinking along the lines of the David and Goliath model, or just the David model for those in the know.

            60

            • #

              Proposed name for the model:

              The David Evans Twenty-First Century Climate Physics Model

              Developed by The Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler, and Unofficial Australian Climate Czar, Mr. Evans

              I’ll have to test this with a few focus groups at local bars.
              People may not know what exalted means.

              30

        • #
          James Bradley

          You just got owned FIN.

          131

      • #
        Gary Meyers

        You need money and a powerful organization behind you. The Koch brothers come to mind.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

        50

        • #

          Gary, could you give them a call please?

          230

          • #
            Gary Meyers

            I’m still laughing. I knew that was coming. I certainly would if I thought that I had a chance of getting through. I’ll see what I can do!

            120

          • #
            Gary Meyers

            Here is a copy of the note I sent off to Koch Industries:
            Dear Sir,
            I don’t know who to contact at Koch Industries so I’ll start here. I know that the Koch brothers are concerned about the global warming, climate change debate. Dr. David Evans has a new model that blows away the warmist argument that doubling of CO2 will cause the global mean temperature to raise between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius. Here is a link to JoNovas’ web site where it is all laid out.
            http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/#comment-1761982
            The reason that I am contacting you about this issue is as follows: While perusing JoNovas’ website, one of the posters commented that David’s new model should be disseminated far and wide. I replied that this would take money and a powerful organization behind you to get any traction. I suggested that maybe the Koch brothers would be willing to help. The next thing that I know, is that I am writing to you hoping that somehow I could start the process rolling. If you go to the website that I included, you can read for yourself. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

            P.S. maybe you could forward this message to the right people??
            Gary W. Meyers

            320

            • #

              Thanks Gary! We might as well try stuff like that.

              Anyone care to write others? If we had some determined backers we could change the world with this material…

              130

              • #
                ColA

                David,

                As weird as it sounds, I would be sending it to lots of the warmist climate scientist and CAGW organisations with the challenge
                “Please review this important new work with an open, objective, scientific mind and if you truly believe in real science that is based on and fits the actual data then your constructive comment/criticism will be greatly appreciated”
                At the least then they will have the opportunity to look and at the best you may get some new unexpected support!

                50

              • #

                Quite feasible Col, although we might need the peer-reviewed paper before that gets traction.

                20

          • #

            Gary Meyers November 6, 2015 at 12:30 am

            You need money and a powerful organization behind you. The Koch brothers come to mind.

            David,
            The Koch Industries Organization, only supports KOCH Industries! A group of folk that understand the jelly bread syndrome!
            In the kitchen 50/50 odds on downsides.
            Out on the new carpet; goes to 80/20 jelly side down! Try that in your statistical mechanics!
            All the best! -will-

            10

      • #
        Brad

        It is hard to teach someone a new concept when their salary depends on them not understanding it. Uptown Sinclair

        120

      • #
        gai

        “get the message out and shouted from the hilltops”. How?
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        I am working on it by posting pointers to this at various non climate sites.

        It works like this folks.

        If I tell ten people and ask them to tell ten people…. The message spreads.

        ………..

        What is needed is a simple synopsis plus what is planned in Paris that can be fed to people like:
        James Delingpole (Breitbart)
        Mark Steyn
        Larry Pickering
        Sean Thomas
        David Rose
        Larry Bell (Forbes)
        Chris Horner (Daily Caller)
        Possibly Amy Harder at the Wall Street Journal.

        I am sure if we put our heads together we can figure out who should be getting this information and how to get it there.

        With Paris looming having the skeptics like Dr Evans and Dr Happer and Dr Freeman Dyson not only saying CAGW isn’t a problem but having actual evidence is really NEWS.

        I do not know about you but getting tagged with a trillion dollar per year fine just because I happen to be enjoying modern civilization is a darn good reason to look at what the other side has to say.

        In the USA there are also groups like the John Locke Foundation, Galt’s Gulch, the Tea Party…. I am sure their are groups in the UK associated with UKIP and you Aussies must have similar groups. There are a lot of people who are not happy with modern politicians we just have to find them and hand them the information and ask them to pass it along. As I said I am working on it.

        THEN we go after the politicians…

        140

        • #
          Ross

          gai

          David and Jo have approached this exercise from an “outside the box approach”, at least as far as climate science goes. It is probably a more conventional approach for other technical professions.
          So I think their different approach should be continued in terms of getting the news out there –do it the other way around and approach the right politicians first and get them asking questions in the media.
          I’m convinced to make progress, the “norm” has to be disrupted as much as possible.

          30

        • #
          CC Reader

          I reccmmend checking out the U-Tube video “Cowboys Herding Cats” to understand the complexity of the task David is attempting.

          30

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Great idea, Gai. David, Jo, any chance of writing a synopsis that could be aimed at those who have some understanding of the ‘global warning’ issue, but are not technically qualified, as so many of your bloggers are.

          I think it has to be written by you, to ensure it encapsulates the facts, and does not include any errors.

          If you can produce something succinct, with a link to a page on your site that gives an expanded version of the intro paragraph that I am suggesting, that could be promulgated by all of us.

          Obviously, you may need to wait until the series is completed, but I am sure many of us would be eager to start disseminating the basic information.

          30

          • #
            ColA

            Another place is Social Media – Facebook, twitter etc. if each of us post that synopsis and link and encourage our friends to share with enough of us we could get it to go viral – that would get the MSM notice!

            10

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Another stalwart to add to your list is Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post.

          20

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        David, thanks for another great post. The results for CO2 sensitivity and important and surely will be disputed by the Warmistas. Long knives are coming. But I think you will handle that very well.
        As to working with other skeptics as being like herding cats, I don’t know how to approach it. I think in OZ you call it the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” But I do agree, that the Tall Poppy Skeptics critiques are coming.
        Perhaps you could identify two or so honorable and open minded skeptics to partner with. If this happens, it may draw some other honorable skeptics to your side.
        The Tall Poppy skeptics will probably work alone. So if you have a good partner or two, it takes a good dog to whip two.
        Lord Monckton or someone like him (if there is one) comes to mind.
        This is probably no help, but thank you and Jo for all your hard work to find the truth and improve what we know about climate and CO2.

        60

      • #

        I have been reading some “science history” and have found that advances in science often come from one person, and most scientists (“the consensus”) will disagree with him for a long time.

        At some point in time most scientists realize they will make no progress in their fields if they continue defending the old, incorrect consensus.

        And in time most will change their views, and claim they knew it all along, they were working on the same thing, and writing a paper, but someone else published first, etc. etc.

        And then we have is a new consensus.

        In time some really smart scientist will challenge or revise that new consensus, and fellow scientists will pooh, pooh him, as usual.

        This reminds me of my main interest, economics and finance, where as a group (of several dozen or more), economists have never predicted a recession. Not once. And of the few economists who did “predict” a recession, most are bearish nearly all the time like a stopped clock.

        90

        • #

          Richard, you are quite right and I am well aware of that history.

          Max Planck, a quantum physicist when quantum mechanics was battling for survival in a fierce fight with classical physics, said: “Science advances funeral by funeral”. Ok, maybe he’d had a bad day, but I don’t expect this will be quick or easy.

          110

          • #

            What you’re saying is ultimately quite simple. I red this post with my girlfriend, a physicist, and it isn’t hard to see how it ties in with your previous posts and what you’re building up to. Basically, that the heat radiated from CO2 atoms reacts with others before it gets back to the Earth’s surface and much of it is simply rerouted back to space. Hence, missing tropospheric hot spot, less surface warming than predicted (even after often shameless “smoothing”!), and satellite data that does not jive with the surface data.

            Simple. Elegant. Sensible.

            Testable. Makes predictions. Falsifiable.

            I’m curious to what extent and how you believe solar and galactic cycles impact the Earth’s climate and whether your paper and blog-post series will touch on that.

            However, it isn’t actually necessary to do that (important) thing in order to speak intelligently on climate sensitivity and predictive-model failure.

            50

    • #
      Dave

      .

      “So now to get the message out and shouted from the hilltops”

      What I read is this

      “Global average air temperature increase at the surface if CO2 doubles is almost zero, or likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C”

      That’s why we have to push for this message – all the hype on Climate models is exaggerated grossly by forces governed by $ to perpetuate the scam!

      And then CSIRO states that Liberal Australian voters are more likely to be skeptics?

      Really – Tim Flannery, Al Gore & David Suzuki are out sprooking lies!
      And results like this – even though the above 3 will never understand the science, none of the MSM Fairfax, ABC, Guardian, BBC plus the ALP & Greens will report this, but continue to give them air time!

      Individuals have to get out and shout from the rooftops
      “The 3.00 °C temperature rise is a load of garbage!”

      252

  • #
    Robk

    Bravo David.
    It appears you have a verifiable/falsifiable model that slots a lot of things in place.
    A pity the historical data is not more robust but in any case the sensitivity is shown to be non alarming.

    222

    • #
      AndyG55

      Robust historic data only goes back to 1979.

      The continued “adjustments” to data prior to 1979 PROVES this to be the case.

      192

      • #

        The past average temperature is an ever changing variable prior to 1979.

        I don’t know of any other field of science where the past is always changing but the future is known with 95% certainty.

        After enough temperature adjustments, the 1930s dust bowl in the US will be in the history books as the snow bowl.

        60

  • #
    AndyG55

    “•The ECS might be almost zero’

    Well done sir…

    Finally someone realises the truth. :-)

    192

    • #
    • #

      Andy, one cannot rule out zero ECS on empirical grounds, because one can find parameter sets that fit all the observations as well as any other (subject to the conflicts and uncertainties) that imply zero ECS.

      190

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        David,
        Very nice.
        I was going to ask if a zero sensitivity resulted often from different input scenarios. I have never dismissed it.
        The small magnitudes of key parameters like WVEL and cloud heights make for some interesting challenges. Are these likely to need dissections by latitude bands, etc?
        My comments made after a quick read _ might change after study.
        Geoff

        20

  • #

    I’ve been suggesting for a white the ECS is around 0.5C – the logic for this is simple. The predicted rise from doubling CO2 is 0.6C (from an expert on CO2 gas) 1.2 (from a complete moron head of NASA who campaigned on environment). So the worst we expect is around 1C direct CO2 effect.

    However, the climate shows extremely strong negative feedback during interglacials (in other words it stops dead and doesn’t get warmer). That suggests to me that feedbacks reduce any warming considerably which I guess means of the order of half the warming effect. So 0.3 to 0.6C.

    So, whilst I haven’t checked the calculations, irrespective of whether it’s the right way to do it, it’s coming up with around the right ballpark figure.

    Also, if we look at recent ECSs, we find a quickly diminishing figure. I did a quick plot based on an exponential decline, and again it seemed to be heading toward the same ballpark figures.

    Combing all these figures, I’d say tentatively that it is more than likely that the final ECS will be between 0.1 – 1C.

    45

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Mike,
      Why not make it zero?
      Logic. We have winds because feedbacks prevent them reaching a plausible, entropy-style global steady state of zero after millions of years.
      We cannot havea global temperature of zero because that is unphysical, so we have a higher average. If events perturb that average, feedbacks act to restore it. There is no logical reason why such feedbacks do not just balance postulated GHG heating.
      Geoff

      11

      • #

        (“Combing all these figures, I’d say tentatively that it is more than likely that the final ECS will be between 0.1 – 1C.”)

        “Mike, Why not make it zero?”

        Indeed. Look at a surface plot of Effective Climate Sensitivity to ‘Atmospheric CO2 levels’, the real part remains at zero. The orthogonal (imaginary) part is huge for folk that wish to preserve the imaginary for the grand children. Just imagine what the ‘grand children’ will think of grandpa! :-(
        All the best! -will_

        30

  • #
    King Geo

    History shows that the truth invariably wins out in the end. Eventually David’s conclusion that “Climate sensitivity calculated at just one tenth of official estimates” will become accepted – when I am not sure but as I have repeatedly said the imminent GM /LIA will go a long way to torpedoing the current mainstream “Grossly Over Estimated Climate Sensitivity Modelling” which is driving the “AGW Religious Scare Mongering” and dominating most MSM outlets. “Judgement Day” is coming for the “Warmists” and they will have a lot of explaining to do, ie why US$trillions have been needlessly squandered in accepting as gospel the “AGW Theory” which in reality has been/will be exposed as a myth that has resulted in incalculable damage to the World’s Economic Prosperity. Is it any wonder most of the World’s Economies are currently in such poor shape.

    101

    • #
      Peter Cynical of Lower Sandy Bay

      Dear King Geo, while “…History shows that the truth invariably wins out in the end …” The “end” can be a very long time. It took the Pope 498 years to forgive Copernicus for proposing a heliocentric solar system and rescind his excommunication. Let’s hope David and Jo are not “excommunicated” anywhere near that long or the warmers are going to cost us a lot of money and, along with the Pope, keep many in the Third World in the “purgatory of poverty” for a very long time.
      I vote for “The Evans Model” It’s simple even; cynical old blokes will remember it!

      40

  • #

    A nice, neat conclusion derived from the long sequence of posts so far.

    Clear, simple, verifiable and deserving of immediate high level attention in order to confirm or rebut.

    Personally, I think the ECS is zero due to the convective adjustments that I described in an earlier post and David has provided an empirical and mathematical narrative that is consistent with that proposition.

    Who, in the AGW camp, will come forward to properly tackle the implications of David’s work ?

    331

    • #
      Bobl

      Can’t be zero Stephen, feedback needs to be casual. IE if something changes then there must be a driver for the change. If the change is zero then what causes the reconfiguration of the convection, see the paradox?

      It might be infinitesimalLy different from zero but it won’t be exactly zero.

      When you run the numbers on warming since 1850 and apply mu of 50% you get an ECS of 0.7. Looking at the difference between blackbody theoretical and now you get an ECS of 0.2-0.4. So the undisputed observations show David is about right, I make historical ECS somewhere between 0.2 & 0.7 this way. Also not accounted for is time, none of the feedbacks are time synchronous, their impulse responses are not correlated and thus you are not entitled to add them.

      Still are big things wrong with the model, not accounting for non radiative losses and non radiative sources. Still treating ECS as a constant and not accounting for the logarithmic relationship to temperature of the water feedback. Not accounting for dynamics, hysteresis or the odd strange attractor that may capture the climate as it moves between steady states. It started out as a toy model that doesn’t work and ended up as a toy model that doesn’t work.

      [bobl -- see Comment 21.1 - DE]

      17

      • #

        bobl:

        IMHO it has to be zero to avoid destabilising the system because a permanent radiative imbalance cannot be dealt with by a move to a new equilibrium state but that is off topic in this thread.

        152

  • #

    One could call it “The Definitive Climate Sensitivity Model” since the concept of elastic ‘pipes’ responding to changes in each other could be applied to climate sensitivity to all so called internal system ‘forcings’ that attempt to disrupt the long term balance between radiation in and radiation out.

    170

    • #
      Winston

      Stephen,
      How does the “Stick that in your pipe and smoke it” model sound?

      It has a certain ring to it, and only ever so slightly hostile to the alarmist brethren.

      In all seriousness though, congratulations and much thanks to Jo and David for their diligence, their perseverance and the hard work in first deconstructing the assumptions of “the science”, and reconstituting it into a more rational and realistic mechanism that lays the foundation for predictions that will show up the exaggerations of the failed mainstream GCMs.

      I have made a small donation to the tip jar, but having just weathered a frivolous and outrageously stressful court case costing several hundred thousand dollars to defend, it is all I can safely afford at the present. It is by no means likely that the alarmists will give it any oxygen, and the nearer the truth it is the less they will want to attend to it. That’s how you know the alarmists are not genuinely interested in understanding, knowledge or truth, and as such they are doomed to fail, hopefully spectacularly.

      122

      • #

        “How does the “Stick that in your pipe and smoke it” model sound? ”

        That sounds good to me but Jo might prefer something more sciency :)

        100

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          It has a good pedigree :)

          PUT THAT IN YOU PIPE AND SMOKE IT means take that and think about it, make what you can of that, digest that if you can, put up with that if you can, and that’s final (even if you don’t like it and disagree with it). Although the origin of this expression is not known for certain, it is generally believed that it developed from the widely held concept that pipe smokers are thoughtful and/or contemplative. The term first appeared in print circa 1824 (see quote below).

          30

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Or, “Stick that in your CO2 pipe and smooth it” ?

        30

    • #
      tom watson

      David is a PHD EE and so to me the model should be called the EE model for Evans Enlightened model. I like recursive alliteration.
      And the sound of EE is what I expect to hear from the believer of AGW conventional dogma.

      I think of EE’s as being applied physicists of the invisible. And I also expect the ECS to be around Zero.

      And to David and Jo, thank you very much.

      30

  • #
    Kevin Hearle

    David great work. What is required now is comment from Spencer, Lindzen, Bracewell or the like. Or a demand that a government either refute your science or stop supporting the UN climate action in Paris on the basis that low sensitivity is not a problem requiring global action.

    261

  • #
    Antero Jarvinen

    Hi David & Jo,

    The paper in the link below may be of relevance to your studies. I do not know for sure because I am only a professor of biology.
    :) Best wishes from Finland & thanks for a great blog! Antero Jarvinen

    http://butler.cc.tut.fi/~trantala/opetus/files/FS-1550.Fysiikan.seminaari/Fileita/KauppinenJ-IREPHY-21Nov13.pdf

    Thanks! – J

    130

    • #
      wert

      International Review of Physics (I.R.E.PHY.), Vol. 5, N. 5
      October 2011
      Manuscript received and revised September 2011, accepted October 2011 Copyright © 2011 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. – All rights reserved
      260
      Major Portions in Climate Change: Physical Approach
      Jyrki Kauppinen, Jorma T. Heinonen, Pekka J. Malmi

      Abstract

      The destroying of rainforests can warm the climate even more than the doubling of
      CO
      2
      concentration can do. The temperature close to the surface of the earth can change due to the
      change of the feedback or the amount of water in the atmosphere, without any forcing or change
      in the concentration of CO
      2
      as well as other greenhouse gases. This paper derives physically the
      sensitivity and the response time of the climate due to radiative forcing and a change in feedback.
      During the last century the temperature increase consisted of change in solar activity (0.47°C),
      destruction of rainforests (about 0.3°C), increase of the concentrations of the greenhouse gases
      (about 0.1°C) and increase of aerosols (about -0.06°C). About one half of the temperature
      increase was anthropogenic.
      Copyright © 2011 Praise Worthy Prize S.r.l. – All rights reserved

      21

  • #
    Gerry Van Hees

    David and Jo
    Wonderful endeavours. As per many other commenters, difficult to follow the math but enjoy the diagrams and other meaningful explanations and especially Jo’s precis at each installment.As many others have said, so much is invested in the cagw non-debate, that any backdown by the (notorious 97%) is almost inconceivable.
    As an aside perhaps your alternative model could be renamed to the NATIVE model.

    42

  • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      whoops.. I’ll post this on another thread .. delete these two is needed to maintain the proper thread content.

      00

  • #
    Don B

    Jo,

    Rather than “alternative model,” how about “advanced climate model”?

    30

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Don’t you just hate the pal reviewers of the climate science clique, sabotaging science research no matter how logical reasonable and robust and then retreating to hide behind the skirt tails of An Onymity. what a bunch of cowards

    72

    • #
      gai

      Dr Evans could alway send his papers to a Russian Journal or a Chinese Journal to be published. (And isn’t that a sad state of affairs to think they are more open than an journal in the west.)

      60

  • #
    Robk

    Perhaps a name including words like:
    Universal Full Feedback Attenuation Model.

    10

  • #
    JJM Gommers

    Recent data on ice/snow and temperature of the Antarctic shows no increase over the last 37 years,over such a long period of time CO2 should have shown some minor increase in temperature, taken in account that the wator vapor pressure is negligible. It looks it verifies the impact of incremental CO2(itself) and that is very small.

    21

  • #
    Robert O

    Although the mathematics is beyond most of your readers myself included, it is certainly beyond the understanding of those who are supporting the AGW hypothesis and now it is the field of politics not science. Politicians have committed themselves to saving the planet, based on IPCC propaganda such as the “Hockey Stick”, and are very reluctant to admit they were duped; but it goes further with influence of the media and those who rely global warming for their existence. Certainly, you have provided a valid explanation as to why there really there is little correlation between levels of CO2 and global temperature which is the mainstay of the AGW hypothesis. We all owe you a gratitude for your efforts. Whether this will stop governments frittering away their money on flawed models, or not, remains to be seen, but I detect some slight change in attitudes.

    81

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    David, congratulations on getting to this point, it has been a long journey. Three solid months of climate science archaeology, preceded by years of professional preparation of course. In the end one could still recoil from publication, uncertain of the outcome. But no, you’ve now taken that big next step. Great stuff. So now the fun really begins.
     

    It’s perhaps just a lucky co-incidence that the parameters I found in my model last year that produced the best match to history also implied an ECS2xCO2 which was exactly half way between your Simple Case B1 and B3 scenarios. I got 0.56°/doubling, which I think is roughly what your model predicts if the WVEL descended by about 25 metres. The implied lambda sensitivity was also 0.15 °C W^−1 m^2 just the same as you found.

    Could be just luck, because my model had no vertical structure to the atmosphere and so has no WVEL at all. :) On the other hand, there was water vapour amplification in my model insofar as H2O always returns a fixed 57.91% of surface OLR back to the surface, which is therefore a positive feedback on temperature rises.

    But if WVEL did drop by 25m over the 20th century, wouldn’t that mean your Full Case model predicts 0.46 for ECS? In that case I’m still not far off.

    It would be interesting if it turned out my model exhibits a similar equilibrium response to your model under the ΔhW = -25 condition you considered likely, but also models transient response, so it is more easily testable in the short term.
    Unfortunately I never figured out how to filter that darn 11 year solar cycle out of the surface temperature, so if you ever find Force X please let me know. :)

    60

    • #

      Andrew, could you please post a link to your model (the whole thing, not just the animated gif)?

      The rerouting feedback adds a lot of stability to the climate in the face of fluctuating CO2. Others have a similar finding — Miskolczi for instance, as I understand it. So that leaves a climate that is actually relatively stable in the current era. The problem is more one of digging out the CO2 signal among the more powerful signals from whatever is causing climate change.

      The true forces on the climate almost certainly leave major clues apart from the surface temperatures — for instance, maybe ENSO and the ocean “oscillations” are also caused by those forces, so it appears as if ENSO and the ocean oscillations are forcing the climate. (Certainly ENSO is a great predictor of temperature — the SO indices leads temperature by six months, though the relationship breaks down on time scales longer than a few years, i.e. it doesn’t do long term predictions.)

      So there ought to be a heap of models and indications with different methodologies that give similar answers. Craig Idso has found lots of disparate reasons for believing that the ECS is around 0.5C, for instance.

      Force X and force D coming up soon.

      111

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Hmmm. You’ve had the luxury of sending your model directly to a couple of people for a discreet peer review before putting it out on the public web. I would like the same luxury.
        An email with a large attachment has been sent to your ScienceSpeak address, with some explanatory notes.
        Also it’s written for LibreOffice/OpenOfficeOrg, so try installing that if Excel doesn’t import it correctly.

        Yes it has always annoyed me that there is this apparently cyclic signal in world temperatures but no obvious external or internal cause, just a bunch of supposition. Like, maybe it is some oscillation in ocean overturning speed which is self-reinforcing, like an LRC circuit. But something else has to keep driving that, it can’t drive itself, so is that energy source the lunar tides, or is it the sun? I’ve no idea.

        First Force X, now Force ‘D’ ? It’s a bit soon to be naming new forces after yourself isn’t it?
        But seriously. You mean there is still more to go? This post isn’t the end of the revelations?
        Good news, looking forward to it.

        90

      • #
        Manfred

        …from whatever is causing climate change.

        At the risk of pedantry, I would be inclined to avoid the term ‘climate change’. It is unclear whether what is being referred to by using these words is as they state, or is instead consistent with the UN definition.

        Whenever it appears necessary to use the term, perhaps consider using ‘a changing climate’ instead?

        And, ‘thank you’ could never do justice to this series of posts and their publication of this monumental piece of rationality lancing through the fog of institutionalised stagnation.

        90

  • #
    Dave in the states

    What I like most about this series and approach is that it squares empirical data, and uses empirical data as a check whenever possible. Science must be grounded to empirical evidence. Well done.

    150

  • #
    pyromancer76

    Robert O at 11/5/15 11:59 p.m.

    “Although the mathematics is beyond most of your readers myself included, it is certainly beyond the understanding of those who are supporting the AGW hypothesis and now it is the field of politics not science. Politicians have committed themselves to saving the planet, based on IPCC propaganda such as the “Hockey Stick”, and are very reluctant to admit they were duped; but it goes further with influence of the media and those who rely global warming for their existence.”

    Robert, AGW is not in the field of politics, nor that of science. It is a fiction of a criminal class. One can take “valid data” and create different models from that and follow up with policies — this could be called “politics”. However, if one is in the habit of altering historical data and putting forth lies as present data, that is criminal activity. Then, we can conclude that there are criminal purposes designed to benefit only the criminals. Very few are into “saving the planet”. Rather, they intend to “save” themselves a huge bundle from this fraudulent boondoggle. The leaders are all in on the take.

    Many thanks to Joanne and David for excellence and persistence and making it through this most harrowing of peer review (designed, as it should be in the scientific method, to prove you “wrong”). It works.

    81

    • #
      Robert O

      Pyro I understand the sentiment of your comment. Certainly there is some criminal activity associated with manipulation of data and no doubt with the carbon scams, buying carbon offsets from Nigeria etc., but there are many people who believe the globe is warming and we must do something as per the Paris meeting. Misguided perhaps, but not criminal. Take the recent comments by Environment Minister Hunt about AGL’s solar plants in western NSW, “a win-win scenario”. 155MW facilities projected to produce 395,000MWh annually which is 26% of nameplate capacity; first, 26% seems much higher than regular Solar PV systems (try 16%), second is the projected 26% a win-win when a hydro scheme of 155MW would produce 4 x more power. There is a lot of this type of mis-information around but it is not criminal and the real problem is that people are gullible in believing it.

      11

  • #
    Bobl

    Let me repeat a few things before you go slapping too many backs.

    This model like it’s parent is flawed, it does not model the earth at all.

    There are no non radiative sources or sinks
    Water is treated as a linear feedback where in actual fact it has a diminishing return just like CO2
    The model is static, it cannot deal with hysteresis, or dynamic effects or the possibly that a local minimum in the climate state can capture the characteristic as it pauses nearby, e.g. attractors
    ECS is almost certainly a function of CO2 partial pressure, temperature and humidity it is almost certainly not a constant.
    The model is not properly energy constrained, for example it thinks water can rise or fall, and emit more or less from the same energy quantum. No account has been made for the energy changes involved in defying gravity

    I think there are a lot of holes to plug here

    35

    • #

      Bobl:

      - “There are no non radiative sources or sinks” That’s because they are tiny compared to sunlight, and in any case are relatively static.
      - “Water is treated as a linear feedback”. Perhaps, but we are going with the AR5 treatment here.
      - “The model is static, it cannot deal with hysteresis, or dynamic effects”. Like the conventional basic model that largely fuels CO2 alarm (see the Introduction), it’s only a basic model. We take the same approach. The aim here is to show that when the architecture of the conventional basic model is fixed, the ECS estimate is much lower.
      - “ECS is almost certainly … not a constant.” Thanks, but we’ll go with the conventional basic approach.
      - “No account has been made for the energy changes involved in defying gravity”. It is built into the feedbacks from AR5, presumably. And the determination of the CVO2 sensitivity (lambda-C) is empirical and thus takes it into account.
      - “… there are a lot of holes to plug here”. Not for a basic model, AFAIK.

      140

      • #
        doubting dave

        DR David please help!! You seem to have all but disappeared my strong libido, whoops errrm i mean albedo and turned it into a limp non event?? I have been under the impression(through my very limited understanding) that cloud albido reflects short wave radiation back out to space thus preventing some short wave radiation from the sun from warming the surface of the earths oceans, therefore reducing the extent that positive feedbacks in the tropics can increase cloud cover by increasing water vapour and allegedly prevent or slow down more long wave radiation from its journey to space a negative albedo feed back that cancels positive feedback , like con-joined twins that share some vital organ and thus can’t be separated . So please doctor can you explain to this confused patient,why you seem to be giving prominence to the positive forcing but only a minor role to the negative forcing of cloud albedo , is it because thats what they do in AR5 and you want to go along with that for the sake of argument or do you agree with AR5 on this for reasons i don’t understand ?

        00

      • #
        Bobl

        David, I am here to tell you you are wrong, lunar kinetic energy ( tidal motion ) is 900 odd watts per meter almost THREEE TIMES isolation! Is that tiny – no it’s 250%

        Photosynthesis is 5 watts per square meter, is that “tiny” – no it’s 2%

        Oceanic bulge due to the earth rotation is something like 21 km a PE thousands of times insolation, it drives pretty much all of the poleward motion of water and air, it is thousands of times isolation, is that tiny?

        It is generally accepted that motion largely degrades to heat via friction. You keep insisting that something is true that is obviously not, you keep reverting to that lossless, frictionless world your model represents, friction is real everything pretty much degrades to heat. Use the math Luke, don’t trust me, work them out for yourself.

        23

      • #
        Bobl

        The key here is ‘Presumably” – I think you will find that the raising or lowering of the WVEL is considered to be a free consequence of the temperature but the energy cost to do that is NOT accounted, nor is the cost of overturning extra water to raise humidity. The IPCC for example claim 5% extra hydrological overturning when physically there is only enough excess energy for 0.8%, you are making the same mistake, energy in a fluid is divided between PE and KE, you need to take account of both.

        For example, heat is turned into PE as the WV rises, what happens to the PE component of that heat when the water condenses out? Serious question David? You propose raising billions of tonnes of extra water an extra 50-100 m ( or lowering that) what is the energy consequence of that? Raising mass against gravity is not free, where does it go? how big is it?

        David, I am sorry to have to say, you are lost in the detail, and need to take a look at the big picture.

        Big picture – there exists a claim that a doubling of CO2 will raise energy by 3.7 watts per square meter for a doubling and that the current imbalance driving warming is 0.6 watts per square meter – this is what drives the warming claim – ignoring that it is 0.6 watts plus or minus 17 watts!

        Any influence within 3 sigma of these values is significant to the question of warming – that is: anything with an influence over about 6 mW per square metre is significant when it comes to the question of warming.

        Now yes this is a basic model as you keep saying, but it is a wrong basic model for all the reasons I say. I have merely pointed out the obvious shortcomings for the back slapping mob who think you have reached the holy grail of a working climate model- you have not. You have created a better basic model that is still wrong for most of the same reasons as its parent. It is an ideal model, it is NOT a model of this earth.

        This is not a criticism of you, it is intended just to remind readers that the job is not done… Yet

        11

        • #
          Robk

          Bobl,
          Early on in the series David says things about the limitations of models.
          Whilst I agree with you to an extent and as described in the paper by the French Mathematical Calculations Society, even to find a global temperature is folly.
          That said, I commend David’s approach; put all the guff aside and go for the CO2 component. After all that is the contested item in the political sphere. That is the money shot. Your previous claim of hysteresis: regarding the water vapour/CO2 energy path, any internal losses would be small because the water and CO2 are close coupled. Water vapour contains CO2. All the other mattersyou speak of could conceivably be added to the string given enough data. I think David is not claiming the holy grail as such but demonstrating flaws in the prior art by putting toward a better case.

          100

    • #

      Bobl,

      instead of this sort of comment why don’t you join the hundreds (or maybe be the only) of engineers and astrophysicists who are “looking at” this model in order to review it to improve it – which is why publishing in a blog is far superior to other review methods.

      70

  • #

    [...] JoanneNova.com.au: Categorized Climate Change by Steve Milloy. Bookmark the [...]

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Now I’m 2 episodes behind. I never got to really deal with 17 and here’s 18 already. Thankfully there are bookmarks. Just don’t ever delete any of this, Jo.

    40

  • #
    Tom

    Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

    So…..In the process as described by Billy Shakespeare, is the CO2 that is being produced by the fire that’s burning the likely greater contributor to the atmospheric greenhouse effect or would it likely be the H2O that is being added to the atmosphere by the boiling caldron that be the greater contributor of atmospheric greenhouse effect? Sorry, just curious.

    [If there's a serious question on the topic in here then please restate it so we can all understand it. Otherwise we keep comments on these New Science threads more closely on topic than anywhere else. Sorry.] AZ

    20

  • #

    climateskeptic wrote
    on November 5, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    “Hi, interested to know what the predictions of your model are.
    Any model is only as good as it ability to predict.”

    There was no “reply” key with his post … so I’ll reply here:

    YOU ARE WRONG.
    A model could be 100% accurate, and still have little or no predictive ability.

    For example, if solar energy output was the only important variable affecting the average temperature of Earth, and solar energy output changed in non-cyclical random ways, there would be no way to predict future solar energy output, or the future average temperature of Earth. You’d know exactly what caused climate change — but could not predict the future climate!

    And even if you identified a repeating solar cycle, and used that knowledge to make a 100% accurate prediction of the average temperature in five years, the actual measurements of Earth’s average temperature could be inaccurate enough to make the model look wrong.

    In general, humans have a terrible record for predicting the future.

    In a previous post I ranted and raved, or perhaps raved and ranted, that Mr. Evans made a serious mistake by allowing a newspaper to publish his prediction of cooling trend starting in 2017 to 2021.

    I have been reading predictions of a cooling trend from astronomers since about 2005. Back then some predicted it would start in 2012 to 2015. They were wrong about the starting date, so naturally most people now dismiss their predictions. I don’t, but most people do.

    Mr. Evans made an unnecessary high risk prediction, because the starting year for cooling was potentially less than 1 1/2 years away, and the prediction was very precise (in tenths of a degree C.).

    Like most climate predictors in the past, Mr. Evans is likely to be wrong (anywhere from somewhat wrong, to completely wrong).

    Which could make an otherwise good climate physics model look bad.

    I know predictions of the future get attention, and attention can help sell a new model, but merely predicting there would be no warming in the next ten years would have been be a lower risk prediction, yet would still contradict the global warmunists enough to annoy them.

    The best way to “sell” a new climate physics model is to build a demand for it by presenting predictions based on the old models from the past 40 years, and showing how inaccurate they have been.
    .
    The typical global warmunist has no idea how bad past predictions / projections / simulations (BS) from GCMs have been in past decades.

    They don’t know about the “pause”, and they don’t know there are weather satellite average temperature data.

    The typical American thinks his home town has warmed in the past decade, and has no idea the contiguous 48 states were cooler in 2014 than in 2004.

    62

    • #
      gai

      I have been reading predictions of a cooling trend from astronomers since about 2005. Back then some predicted it would start in 2012 to 2015. They were wrong about the starting date, so naturally most people now dismiss their predictions. I don’t, but most people do.

      Actually there are signs of cooling. Because Stephen Wilde’s loopy jets are more indicative of cooling than temperature which is a rotten measure thanks to confounding by the latent heat of vaporization, you see the cooling in other evidence.

      According to WIKI “Hudson Bay was the growth centre for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age.”

      August 13, 2015: 2nd highest ice coverage for Hudson Bay since 1971 at mid-August – only 1992 higher

      Directly south of Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year. Water temperature of the Great Lakes was over 6 degrees colder than normal in October of 2014.

      In Europe where the other ice sheet formed. Almost 300 “snow patches” remained in the Highland mountains in 2014. This year was even worse.
      https://weatheraction.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wpid-scottish_snow_patches_20150827t140213.jpg

      Britain has seen the earliest ever arrival of Siberian swan. The premature arrival of winter in many European countries has encouraged Bewick’s swans to flock westwards earlier than usual. ” The first bird arrived on Sunday – a full 25 days earlier than last year and the earliest date on record. “ — (wwwDOT)telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11926752/Britain-faces-longest-winter-in-50-years-after-earliest-ever-arrival-of-Siberian-swan.html

      Probably the biggest sign is the Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover which has been at high levels.
      https://i1.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_2301-Jun.-07-09.15.gif

      Not to mention Italy toppling the highest single day snowfall record not once but twice last year.
      So I do not see that Dr Evan’s prediction is that far off.

      81

      • #

        There are lots of signs of cooling, such as the water meter in my garage freezing and cracking in February 2014, for the first time since we moved in (1987).

        Cost me $300. I’m a victim of climate change!

        That 2013/2014 winter also set a new snowfall record for the Detroit metropolitan area where I live

        … but the 2015 EL Nino and the temporary warming spike from it, makes it hard to claim the cooling has already begun.

        I published this on my climate blog a while ago:

        Based on source data collected by government agencies, headed by people appointed by President Obama, a stunning amount of publicly available climate information has been ignored or barely mentioned by most media sources who seem to think it is NOT important for you to know:
        .
        (1) 2014 had the greatest snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere since data collection began in 1968
        (Rutgers University Global Snow Lab).
        .
        (2) 2014 had the greatest Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent (area) on record.
        .
        (3) 2014 had Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent (area) rebound back to a normal level.
        .
        (4) About 75% of the 48 contiguous US states had their hottest years on record BEFORE 1955.

        Only one US state had its hottest year on record AFTER the year 2000.
        .
        (5) Over 50% of the 48 contiguous US states had their COLDEST year on record AFTER 1940.
        .
        (6) US / Canada Great Lakes ice in 2014 set three cold weather records (the second greatest ice extent (area) on record in early 2014, the longest ice duration on record in early 2014, and the earliest ice formation on record in late 2014).
        .
        (7) 2014 had the fewest number on record of US land-based temperature stations that reached 90 degrees F. or warmer at any time during the year.
        .
        (8) 2014 average annual US temperature for the 48 contiguous states, according to NOAA, was only the 33rd warmest year since 1895 — 2.7 degrees F. below the record high.
        .
        (9) 2014 average annual US temperature for the 48 contiguous states, according to Berkeley Earth, was only the 38th warmest year since 1850.
        .
        (10) 2014 average annual US temperature was the 4th coldest year in the past 17 years, according to NOAA.
        .
        (11) ALL measurement methodologies used in the world have reflected a flat average temperature trend for at least the past 12 years.
        .
        There are no exceptions.
        .
        Many Americans lived through an unusually cold year in 2014, yet have no skepticism when told in January 2015 that 2014 was the hottest year for Earth on record.
        .
        And most Canadians exhibit no skepticism either:
        .
        (12) 2014 was the coldest Canadian year since 1996, according to Environment Canada.
        .
        The huge number of important climate facts never mentioned in mainstream press articles on the climate are stunning — I would have expected Baghdad Bob, Saddam Hussein’s old propaganda minister, to have been the author of most of the climate articles in the mainstream press !
        .
        .
        The truth is Earth’s climate has improved in the past 150 years:
        .
        More CO2 in the air has accelerated green plant growth on Earth (greenhouse owners use CO2 enrichment to accelerate the growth of their own plants).
        .
        The slight warming since 1850 is good news, and I hope it continues.
        .
        CO2 has little or no effect on the temperature.

        110

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Richard

          You mentioned 1850; supposedly the starting date for us humans to have begun : “global warming”.

          This is a look at the “quantitative” possibility of man made CO2 being a Force for evil: it uses the start date of 1850.

          From 2011

          —————————————————————————

          MFJ
          October 24, 2011 at 9:10 am

          Every “Climate Scientists” presentation I have seen tells lies by omission.

          For example we are told that “Carbon Dioxide will blah, blah, blah ….. and if CO2 doubles then … blah, blah, blah ”.

          They will Never separate out the Human effect of CO2 from the Total CO2 effect.

          They will never acknowledge the presence of water vapour in the air because as a Green House Gas it wipes the floor with CO2.

          So, as a last post, I felt it important to give examples of how the CO2 we produce really influences the climate and will use a very

          concrete example of a real measured period from our recent past.
          ————————————————————————————————–

          With apologies to Rudyard Kipling.

          IF

          Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:

          a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.

          b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.

          c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.

          d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.

          And

          e. Atmospheric H2O is about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.

          It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control three items:

          1. The oceans and 2. Water vapour 3. Natural CO2 emissions.

          Logically the Atmospheric CO2 and Ocean origin CO2 interaction needs serious study and Human CO2 emissions are rendered insignificant by

          the sheer weight of the Water GHG effect and natural origin CO2.

          So the Total GHG effect is

          1. Water about 95%

          2. Total CO2 about 4% of GHG effect

          3. Human proportion of CO2 is 3% of the above 4% or, from another viewpoint, 0.12 % of all GHG effect.

          IF

          If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years from 1860 (maybe).

          And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise (very debateable).

          And if human origin CO2 is to be taken into account.

          THEN.

          Our part of the world’s green house gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise of 0.6 C degrees.

          (calculated as a min). (Approx 0.0016 C max)

          The rest is nature.

          Likewise we are responsible for 0.0048 mm (max) of the annual 3mm ocean increase.

          Over 100 years WE would cause 0.48 mm sea rise.

          Holy Crap Batman.

          We’ve been had by the IPCC, WWF and many politicians.

          The “revelation” above is simply confirmation of the real science.

          When you quantify the “Green House” ( if I can use that term) effects:

          • we have a major winner in Water

          • followed by Natural produced CO2

          • and way behind both in magnitude, Human Related CO2 struggling to make any visible impression on the system.

          So CCS and Carbon Abatement, Carbon Footprint, Responsible Energy and other catchphrases of the Church of AGW may now be consigned to
          the sin bin where they belong.

          This has been my last post.

          Good luck.

          ps.
          Also because of the log effect of CO2 we humans will provide even less bang for the buck when next the atmospheric CO2 increases

          by the same amount as from 1850 to now. (if there was any actual increase after the fudging is removed.

          51

          • #

            I don’t know who MFJ is, but his is a good post. (is MFJ you?)

            I used 1850 only because some average temperature compilers start with that date — probably a few temperature readings in Europe in 1850 and not much else — I have no idea where raw data from the 1800s would be located but imagine it would be at least +/- 1 degrees C. margin of error, or more, as a “global” temperature.

            Thermometers from the 1800s tend to read low vs. modern instruments — you’d get +/- 0.5 degrees C. just from rounding to the nearest whole degree C. in the 1800s.

            When the Church of CO2 (causes catastrophic global warming) loses favor, it will be replaced by another environmental scare that is under the radar right now. The leftists always keep a few scares “warmed up” in case they are needed. I’ve watched this since the DDT scare in the 1960s.

            I have a barstool theory that many of the UFOs people see are from other planets, and the reason the pilots don’t want to land on Earth and meet us is they see half of us are violent and would shoot them, and the the other half are so stupid they think CO2 is a satanic gas!

            think extraterrestials y

            30

      • #
        bit chilly

        this summers north sea surface temperature peaked 6c lower than last year. amo going cold rather quickly.

        11

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    I don’t have the time (or, to be honest, the energy) to analyze the theory in detail, but the “zero sensitivity” scenario looks a lot like Ferenc Miskolczi’s adaptive greenhouse effect.

    Not that that’s a bad thing, but Miskolczi is still unproven, and criticised even by many committed sceptics. These alternatives open a debate (Hurrah!) but don’t win the argument even when they are conspicuously more in accord with observation than the “orthodox” science.

    As sceptics, we should embrace our one advantage over the true believers – our willingness to live with uncertainty. Theories exist for only one purpose; to be tested against reality, so that we may gain a more accurate understanding of the universe. Saving the planet? Pshaw! Superman saves the planet. Scientists learn

    70

    • #

      Uncle Gus November 6, 2015 at 5:11 am

      “I don’t have the time (or, to be honest, the energy) to analyze the theory in detail, but the “zero sensitivity” scenario looks a lot like Ferenc Miskolczi’s adaptive greenhouse effect.”

      The effort of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi with all that measured but un-homoginized data is the only thing that the CCC has for a conjecture, not fantasy. ;-)

      “Not that that’s a bad thing, but Miskolczi is still unproven, and criticised even by many committed sceptics.”

      As it should be! The real (everything) must include back to all thoughts, concepts, fantasy, and the physical (measurable). Engineering only deals with the measurable! Science as opposed to philosophy supposedly has methods for dispatching fantasy back to the philosophical!
      The lowest is a “conjecture”, one observation that may never repeat!
      Next is a “hypothesis”, a trial explanation for many repeat observations. Along with a clear expression of how to dispatch such as fantasy. “If this does not happen flush it”!
      Above that is a “theorem”, an explanation of ‘why’
      for many repeat and repeatable observations.

      The scammers claim a theorem, just like the booth at the State Fair, selling knives “that never get dull”.

      To be in anyway scientific there must exist a minimum of one observation! Miskolczi has that! None of all other CCC academics come anywhere close.
      All the best! -will-

      12

  • #
    Philip Mulholland

    David,
    Suggest that you call it a Parallel Model as your pipes are in Parallel and not in Series.

    00

  • #
    Rob R

    Perhaps one thing that could be done is sending the new model to a few open minded scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen. As they are already very busy I would begin with a concise summary of the “4 pipe theory”, the “energy interception” idea and the implications that much of the action is taking place in the mid tropospheric to stratospheric levels. This is so they can see why it would be useful to take a closer look at the detail. Then provide them with the detailed rationale and the model in full.

    30

    • #

      Rob, perhaps you could email them :)

      If enough people draw their attention to something interesting, they’ll make time to have a look.

      (I get sent a lot of manuscripts, but unfortunately most of them are not interesting because they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Lindzen and Curry are way more prominent, so probably get an avalanche of emails from people promoting their own stuff. I can only imagine they ignore most of them.)

      70

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        David, further up (2.1.7.3) I have suggested that you or Jo write something that we unskilled followers could use to disseminate to whoever we think might be interested. Could you do that?

        20

      • #
        Agnostic

        Dr Curry would not ignore this, as she knows about you and Jo, and has met Monckton. Rob R is correct in suggesting a very concise summary, and append the detailed analysis. The key points in my opinion are correcting the architectural flaws in the basic climate model and the cloud top/WVEL analysis. Dr Curry has not too long ago released a text book on microphysics of clouds so this will interest and appeal to her.

        She is also a champion of independent science. People have already mentioned your work of on her site. I am certain she would find a space for you to make a guest post. This is by far one of the most interesting and most fully thought out approaches for some time, and she has a highly technical audience that would enjoy picking over it.

        It might be worth making sure, absolutely sure, that all your detail can be found on one place, plus all the data and code you used to draw your conclusions. At least whatever won’t conflict with whatever review process you are going through now.

        I strongly recommend that you do though. She is prominent, credible, fair, and followed by a fair few climate scientists and interested politicians. An endorsement from her would go a long way I think.

        20

  • #
    • #

      So far this series has focused on modeling the effect of increasing CO2 better, and finds it’s not the main cause of the recent global warming. Next we turn to what did cause it.

      There are funny correlations between earthquakes and solar events. There’s a section ahead where we discuss mechanisms, but there are quite a few possibilities.

      61

  • #
    Robber

    For a name: “The Four Pipes Climate Model”
    and the headline: Global warming alarm bells no longer ringing.
    New research shows that the Paris 2015 UN Climate Change Conference can be cancelled, or alternatively turned into a celebration. Global warming will stay below 2 degrees C, and there is no need for any global agreement to save the planet. All of the funds devoted to the IPCC and government agencies focused on catastrophic climate change can now be diverted to helping the poor by providing clean water, delivering electricity and improving health services.

    50

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    I read this post several times, then let it soak in all day. There is much to like, and some things not so much that merit further thought, which digging starts tomorrow.
    To like. First, the model derivation is rigorous and clear. So important.
    Second, the ‘U’ (anthro/ natural) attribution ratio that emerges from the model. Less than 50% post 1948 has to be right, since the temperature rise from about 1920 to about 1945 is statistically indistinguishable from that of about 1975 to 2000, a Lindzen point also made in essay C?AGw.
    Third, Dr. evans says he will be making testivle predictions. Good.
    Not to like. First, The reliable radiosonde data on humidity really is only the shorter period. That is the only one where instrument to instrument cold dry dry biases were measured and cross calibrated. Climate chapter of The Arts of Truth. Unfortunately, that means the reliable data (a few decades) is simply not sufficient to determine an ECS over centuries, at least not with much certainty.
    Second, the incredible sensitivity to minor variation in WVEL and cloud tops. Even though Dr. Evans is using averages, it doesn’t feel right. For example, not all cloud tops are created equal; optical density (the albedo property) varies with moisture content. For example, WVEL is influenced by Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris convection/precipitation/ moisture detrainment. This operates over physical scales of kilometers. Hard to think that an average shift up or down of 25 meters is physically meaningful.
    Third, the energy budget approaches using data back to about 1880 suggest an ECS of about 1.7 (see Lewis and Curry 2014 for a review using IPCCs own numbers, or Lewis 2015 for a revision with lower aerosols that estimates maybe 1.5 or a bit less.
    Fourth, both the Lindzen and Choi and the Spencer and Braswell papers contain assumptions that cannot be empirically verified and have been criticized elsewhere. Miskolski contains mathematical errors. So there really isn’t any other peer reviewed literature to support such a low ECS.
    Nor is it necessary, since an ECS of 1.5 or 1.7 shoots down CAGW and the UNFCCC agenda as effectively as an ECS of 0.5, yet can be gotten through more means, more empirically. Essay Sensitive Uncertainty provides details and references.

    32

    • #

      Rud, yes, the data is inadequate. Particularly the vertical movements of the WVEL and cloud tops, both heavily averaged notions (but the averaging is no worse than global surface temperature IMHO). We only have any cloud top data from 2000.

      However, turning it around, to get an ECS near 3 C, or even 1.5 C, requires WVEL and cloud tops movements that contradict what data we do have.

      However, the role of the conventional basic model in spurring on CO2 alarmism has been that it is a method of applying basic physics to the climate –and it gives an alarmingly high climate sensitivity.

      In this series we showed that the conventional basic model had faulty architecture — particularly because it systematically omits feedbacks other than in response to surface warming (so no rerouting feedback), and because it applies the same response to extra absorbed sunlight as it does to extra CO2 (which is ludicrous).

      Fixing these problems gives the alternative model, which, on what data we have, gives a much lower estimate of ECS — a fifth or a tenth of the conventional.

      Furthermore, the bottom-up GCMs were tuned to fit the warming of the 1970s – 1990s, which was presumed to be entirely due to rising CO2, because of the conventional basic model. That is, indirectly, the GCMs were turned to give the same result as the conventional basic model.

      So the significance of this post is not that it gives the last word in the ECS, as that it brings into question the whole complex of basic-model-GCMs-alarm.

      More data will eventually sort this issue out, but the original reason for being alarmed by increasing CO2 is now rendered mute, IMHO.

      Btw, my aim here is not to shoot down the UNFCCC agenda, but to find the truth. (And I used to be an alarmist :) .)

      122

  • #
    Alle Auverte

    While naming can be fun it would be nice if it simply becomes known as the working model. After a well staged introduction I imagine there’s still a long road ahead to prove & test it. Let’s see what comes out the other end.

    30

  • #
    Andrew Richards

    An excellent contribution to science and deserves to be widely appraised. Of course, the crony climate establishment and the fascistic-socialist would-be global tyrants will do their best to ignore it, dismiss it and ridicule it. Especially at this time. Congratulations to you David and to you too Jo. My tip jar contribution on its way. Congratulations!

    80

  • #
    William

    David, you will know you have succeeded with your theory when your abstract appears as a “Climate Myth” at skepticalscience.com and it is disproved by them using a combination of strawmen, invented or alleged errors in calculations (which they never justify), your relationship with Jo and ridicule.

    80

    • #

      Are you kidding William? I “succeeded” years ago: http://www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm

      PS No idea who the bloke with the beard is. Almost every line of this webpage is wrong. No links to me, only to stuff they allege I said but didn’t. Crazy propaganda (by the way, the site’s author, John Cook, is paid by Australian taxpayers).

      “Skeptical Science”, where even the name of the website is deceptive…

      131

  • #

    Looks to me as if Idso’s “Natural Experiments” to determine sensitivity to CO2 got it about right. Not all that surprising as they were based on observation. Now David seems to have a good theory to explain the result.

    50

  • #
    mark

    Just as Dr Evans works out the question to explain CO2, climate and everything……

    …..a Vogon constructor fleet falls into orbit around Earth!

    00

  • #
    mark

    Am patently fed up with climatologists in the BOM spruking on about El Nino and attempting to explain a negative IOD as positive because there is a patch of colder than average ocean immediately to our north. All the wx we are getting at the moment is influenced by the Indian Ocean….(the patch of cold water IS in the influence of the Nino not the Indian Ocean)

    I am so glad that David and Jo have persevered over all these years. A trace gas, representing 0.0004% of the atmosphere can influence the surface temperature of the planet by 2C is patently false. The explanation at a molecular level fails. The explanation at a planetary levels fails and now I have empirical evidence to back up my failed chemist/physicist gut feeling that the sums just cannot add up

    61

  • #

    We are watching an example of the process of understanding the problem before attempting to create its final solution. This process is much more likely to succeed than the usual approach. Such as starting with the desired solution and discovering what problem it solves.

    Sadly, the so called climate scientist weren’t even that good. They determined the solution and the problem. Then they forced the data to fit both. The resultant catastrophe will not be their predicted runaway global warming. It will be runaway deficit spending, heavy handed top down totalitarian control of the lives of everyone, and a return to a non technological dark ages. That is if we assume we allow it to continue.

    110

  • #

    I notice Jo’s link to the 1998 paper by Dr Sherwood Idso.
    I posted an html version in 2006 –
    How MINISCULE is the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect ?
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=30
    Sherwood looked at results from eight natural experiments and arrives at a CS of about 0.4°C.

    30

  • #

    Hi Dr Evans,

    to get the new model to the masses, one important way is to make it more understandable for non-mathematicians. I am able to understand simple formulas or equations, but as soon unknown abbreviations arise, it appears to me like Chinese.

    I tried to dig into the math, but for me the problem is how to find the explanation for a certain mathematical abbreviation. For Slow-Learner like me it would be easier to see the formulas with full names of the various factors, even if it is boring for a mathematician to do so.

    The problem of is that if someone hasn’t learned Math like a language, he needs some translation.

    Hopefully we see some time a popular explanation of your Model – not too simplified but made in a way non-scientist can read and understand it thoroughly.

    Just send it to dummies like me for proof-reading. (Means if we can follow and understand).

    I’m a German and I saw nobody has dared to translate your Posts to German sceptical blogs. Even with your notch-delay theory nobody made a full translation or a comprehension, so I did it and it was posted on Klimawandler and Kalte Sonne blog. But this stuff here is much harder to explain.

    But even lots of English reader are struggling here.

    50

    • #

      Johannes, we crawl before we walk.

      First I had to explain the model in detail and submit it for public scrutiny. That phase is nearly done.

      Next we try to open it up to the masses. I am writing a couple of essays (no maths!) to help with that.

      90

  • #
    Rick Will

    Earth Climate Examplar Nova – Evans

    Much of the so far 18 posts on the new science is directed at the so-called simple model. That is attention diverting.

    The Evan’s model should be presented from a clean sheet approach with only passing reference to any existing model. Present as clearly (meaning also succinct) as possible with validation of parameters to the most reliable data.

    There also needs to be a supplement that identifies specifically why CGCMs fail. Is it the lack of true 3D capability meaning parameters such as cloud tops are inputs rather than dependent outputs of the models? Looking into the CGSMs to identify their specific weakness is a key to selling any new so-called “simple” model/ Evan’s model.

    00

    • #

      Rick, the new alternative model basically rearranges the three elements of the conventional basic model, using the same values (Planck sensitivity, fall in OLR from CO2 per Co2 doubling, total feedback to surface warming). It then adds a fourth element (the CO2 sensitivity) and fits it all to the relevant data (using the OLR model).

      So, the alternative model inherits a lot of stuff from the conventional model, aka the “basic physics”.

      We are considering a short book, if there is sufficient interest.

      50

      • #
        Rick Will

        Beyond acknowledging the source of elements you are using, compile the simplest possible version of your model. Make it easy to comprehend without all the waffle around the differences to any other simple model. I do not envisage more than the whole 18 sections being condensed into 10 pages. Remove all the detail on things like the reason why partial differentials do not work over a wide range. Present a coherent and logical development of your climate model with regard to CO2 sensitivity.

        10

      • #
        Alle Auverte

        I suspect it may benefit from being presented on both levels – the substantial and the essential, as well as several levels in between.
        A short Skeptics Handbook style teaser might help lead a wider audience , of otherwise uninçlined, into exploring its intricacies.

        20

        • #
          Alle Auverte

          but that’s for your support team of course and in time. You must give all your attention to its substance.

          10

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    Jo

    “The alternative model (we are going to have to come up with a better name) ”

    How about the DEFT model standing for Direct Energy Flow Transfer to distinguish it from the IPCC Back Radiation model. It can also stand for David Evan’s Energy Transfer model reflecting the meaning of the word Deft as “demonstrating skill and cleverness”.
    A great piece of work David that gives a more credible outcome to the empirical data than the IPCC “Flat Earth Back Radiation” model and offers a good basis to incorporate/explain the points raised by Bobl

    30

  • #
    RogueElement451

    The Good Evans Model .

    Pithy, thought provoking,illustrative and a bit funny.

    30

    • #
      Alle Auverte

      As in “Good ‘eavans I wish we’d thought of that” ?

      Might benefit from input of someone called Good.

      20

  • #
    J T

    David,
    I am very grateful that you have put all this together into a comprehensible way. I sure have learned a lot. Clearly you make the points that the algorithm in the conventional model is inconsistent with the physical reality as well as provides results inconsistent with the combined observations of ΔT, ΔCO2, ΔWVEL, etc.

    Your model concerns to a large degree the rearrangement of feedbacks compared to the conventional model. While this is very reasonable I still have some trouble understanding what your model actually does regarding the open-loop feedback, i.e. going from ΔR to ΔTsa.

    First your formulas:
    ΔTsa = ΔR * λsb * M = ΔR * λsb * η * e
    = ΔR * λsb * λ0/ λsb * 1/ λ0 * λ0/(1- fα * λ0)
    = ΔR * λ0/(1- fα* λ0)
    So it seems that all you do is extend λ0 in eq. 3 in post 9 with λ0 = λ0 * λsb / λsb as:
    λ0 * 1/(1- fα * λ0) ≡ λsb/λsb * λ0/(1- fα* λsb/λsb * λ0)
    => λsb * M ≡ λ0 * 1/(1- fα* λ0)

    I don’t quite follow here since you seem to argue that λ0 * 1/(1- fα * λ0) is somehow physically or conceptually incorrect with invalid planck conditions etc. but the math in your formulas seems to say it’s just fine anyways.

    Is ΔTsa mathematically dependent on λsb or not? If it isn’t, (it looks like it isn’t) could this be interpreted that your model actually uses eq. 3 in post 9 and the linearization of SBs law with λsb is just to show that eq. 3 is a generic equation valid over sufficiently small changes of radiating temperature? Or does it mean something else? Maybe me just being mathematically illiterate?

    Furthermore, regarding the bypassing of non-albedo feedbacks from other “forcings” than solar; in post 9 you say:

    (However AR5 does not give the breakdown of the cloud feedback into shortwave effects, which affect albedo, and longwave effects, which do not. For those values we averaged the sources referenced by AR5, which break them down by SW and LW. Cloud feedbacks are notoriously the largest source of uncertainty in the solar response; hence the large uncertainties.)

    I have some trouble to follow this. Since this is a crucial point of your alternative model could you please clarify what are “shortwave” and “longwave effects”. Can you give some examples? Are shortwave effects = albedo feedbacks from surface temperature and longwave effects a feedbacks from radiating temperature? Or is it something else?

    And how does this match with your statement in in post 13:

    The dependence of TS,A on TR is complicated because TR depends on the temperatures of the various layers that emit OLR, one of which is the surface, and the rest of which are somewhere in the atmosphere. The relationship between TR and TS,A is thus mainly mediated by the atmosphere. The atmosphere is complicated and has many feedbacks. However it acts and reacts quickly — usually within days, always within weeks — which allows a great simplification: on timescales of a year or more (such as moves between steady states, as the CO2 concentration rises) and for small perturbations, ΔTS,A is (presumably) proportional to ΔTR. Accordingly we model ΔTS,A as
    ΔTS,A=M* ΔTR
    where M is the ARTS (Amplification of Radiating Temperature to Surface) multiplier. M therefore describes the effects of all the feedbacks in response to surface warming except those influencing albedo, and is thus the open-loop form of the non-albedo feedbacks in response to surface warming.

    I’m confused. Is M a response to radiating temperature ΔTr or to surface warming ΔTs? If the latter isn’t e.g. ΔTsc also a surface warming that M should be a response to? I assume you mean the former but could you please formulate the description so it becomes clear what you mean. Especially since the conventional model sort of implies the latter.

    Is it correct to say that in your sum-of-warmings model: the change of surface temperature including non-albedo feedbacks are modelled independently for the different “forcings”.
    For solar radiation ASR it is modelled as amplification including open loop feedbacks: λsb * M
    M consist of relatively quick LWR non-albedo feedbacks, mediated mainly by the atmosphere. M is caused by a change in radiating temperature (i.e. a total of temperature changes in all emission layers including the surface) and affects surface temperature.

    For changes in OLR from change in CO2 conc it is modelled as a single sensitivity parameter including any non-albedo feedbacks: λc. λc includes relatively quick feedbacks on surface temperature Tsc caused by the initial change in surface temperature in the same way as these are included in M).

    Or have I got it wrong?

    Again, thank you for a great job.

    10

    • #
      J T

      Correction: missed the strikethrough on fa on some places. This only concerns non-albedo feedbacks (fa not fa).

      My point should now be clearer:

      ΔTsa = ΔR * λsb * M = ΔR * λsb * η * e
      = ΔR * λsb * λ0/ λsb * 1/ λ0 * λ0/(1- fα * λ0)
      = ΔR * λ0/(1- fα* λ0)
      So it seems that all you do is extend λ0 in eq. 3 in post 9 with λ0 = λ0 * λsb / λsb as:
      λ0 * 1/(1- fα * λ0) ≡ λsb/λsb * λ0/(1- fα* λsb/λsb * λ0)
      => λsb * M ≡ λ0 * 1/(1- fα* λ0)

      10

    • #

      JT, there are two principles at work here:

      1. We’d prefer to use λsb to λ0, because the former applies under all circumstances, while the latter only applies under the Planck conditions (it is a partial derivative that does not technically exist — see posts 2 and 4).

      2. We accept and use the parameters values from AR5 wherever possible here.

      All we did in the second rearrangement of post 9 is to swap in λsb for λ0, transferring their multiplicative difference (η) into the in-line non-albedo feedback multiplier e (= 1/(1- fα * λ0)), thus forming M. So yes, ΔTsa and M depend on the AR5 value of λ0, because we used those AR5 values to compute them here. But no, if one were computing the parameters from scratch, they would be independent of λ0 — one would use Eq. (5) of post 8 to compute λsb, then use GCMs or some other method to estimate M directly, and no longer bother with λ0.

      00

    • #

      JT, regarding the partitioning of feedbacks into either albedo or non-albedo, I omitted these details from the blog posts as too peripheral (length matters).

      First, conceptually there is no problem doing this, as in Eq. (2) in post 9.

      Second, AR5 did not give these parameter values, but they can be reconstructed from the references given by AR5. Increasing Ts causes more cloud cover at low altitudes and some high altitudes, less cloud cover at mid latitudes and the highest altitudes, and changes in optical depth such as thickening at low altitudes ([Dessler, Zhou, Zelinka, & Yang, 2013], Fig. 5), causing two short-term cloud feedbacks that sum to the total cloud feedback fcl:
      1. Albedo increases at low altitudes but decreases at mid to high altitudes, affecting the incoming shortwave radiation. This feedback, fcl-sw, is negative if albedo increases.
      2. OLR (longwave) from cooler cloud tops replaces OLR from the warmer surface (a positive feed-back), or vice versa depending on the altitude. Denoted by fcl-lw.

      Then we consulted [Vial, Dufresne, & Bony, 2013], [Dessler, Zhou, Zelinka, & Yang, 2013], and [Dessler, 2010] for values of fcl-sw and fcl-lw. We averaged all the estimates to form the values presented in this blog series. Then
      fα = surface albedo feedfbacks (from AR5) + fcl-sw
      fα = water vapor and lapse rate feedback (from AR5) + fcl-lw.

      00

    • #

      JT, M is the in-line form of the non-albedo feedbacks appropriate for in-line use with λsb. The feedbacks it expresses are in response to surface warming, ΔTs, in the context of the conventional model as per Fig. 2 of post 9. (Of course, ΔTs is due to ΔTr, but that’s feedback loops for you.) See Fig. 1 of post 3 on how to put feedbacks in-line.

      In the sum-of-warmings model (see Fig. 1 of post 13) we go on to separating the solar and Co2 responses, defining each as what would happen in the absence of other climate influences. Therefore in that context the feedbacks within M are in response to ΔTs,a but not in response to ΔTs,c.

      So yes, in the sum-of-warmings model M is independent of the CO2 response and the response to other non-solar drivers.

      Note also that the CO2 response is exceedingly slow — the build up in CO2 is about half a percent per year. It is a slow, steady background process, compared to the albedo and water vapor processes — which nearly all occur on time scales of hours to weeks.

      Yes, I bundled all the CO2 response into a single parameter λc, whose internal structure might be a sensitivity and some feedback loops. But in any case, for the sum-of-warmings model it is reasonable to say the process is linear and model it with a single number. Good enough for a first pass estimate with a basic model.

      Good questions JT, but maybe next time put them under the appropriate post (yep, I’m answering questions to all posts still) and one question per comment.

      10

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Model Name.

    The “Evans Model” is good. May as well put your name on it – you’ve done the work.

    50

  • #
    al in kansas

    I left a comment on and link to here at http://judithcurry.com/. I see she is in your blog list. I do not know if she reads here regularly. She should of course. ;)
    I see what you mean (in a reply to a previous comment) about getting to Miskolczi’s result by different route.
    I do drive by Kochs headquarters here in Wichita on a regular basis, but I suspect that if went banging on their front door about this someone would call security. :o

    50

  • #
    Mr. Jocelyn Boily

    Dr. Evans,

    This is very interesting work. I just discovered your posts, so did not have time to process all the posts. I am also a control engineer, with expertise in modeling systems.

    Obviously, your work is quite extensive, and point to a few major flaws in the IPCCs models. I always assumed the Global Warming Scientist new what they where doing, but obviously not all of them do know what they are doing, and some of the rest do not want to look too closely. Hopefully, some will see the light you are shining on the subject.

    It seems to me you still do not consider something that a few have noticed. That is, there seem to be a strong Global Temperature correlation with the “Total cumulative sum” of the Sunspots Number – k * the average (of all the Sn data). ( Ts = totalSum ( Sn – k* Average(Sn) ). This correlation comes with a time lag of almost a decade, which would imply something is accumulated at the receiving end. It seem to me we are missing something in the models, (even yours) that would improve the accuracy of the predictions if added. Basically adding a parameter to consider this long term cumulative factor, and see if the model gain in accuracy. The Sun cycle effect on Global Temperature does not seems to be only due to the variation of photonic radiation its emit. Some other process are at play here.

    10

    • #

      Jocelyn,

      Indeed David has spent a long time investigating the correlation with sunspot numbers and TSI in depth and identified the lag. He found a “notch filter” last year, in the transfer function, with a delay of one half a full solar cycle (about 11 years). We’ll be updating that in coming posts. There is a lot more to come. The notch ended up suggesting but not guaranteeing a lag, but there is other empirical studies which show the lag is real. Most of last years work held up well. He produced a solar model with the lag that fit the data better than current GCM’s do. Predictions were here.

      31

      • #
        Mr. Jocelyn Boily

        Joanne,

        Thank you for the pointer to the Notch filter post. Yes, the Transfer Response to the solar Optical input should cover almost every effects, short term and long term. It seems that there is also a second notch in the 120 years, when using longer data period series. Just wondering what would cause such a long term notch outside of the lack of accurate data for these long periods.

        However, this 18th post is a systematic model (as opposed to an empirical transfer function), and as such does not include many of the long term solar effect. As an example, the Ozone Contribution to the TSI is assumed to be constant here, however the rate of formation of ozone is highly dependent on the Solar Cycle, And the rate of depletion as changed over the past few decades due to pollution factors. This might be one of the avenue to include some of the long term Solar effect in the systematic model.

        I am looking forward for update on this.

        00

      • #

        Sunspots are a proxy for solar energy, not actual measurements.

        Sunspot counts may not be reliable, and the methodology for counting them probably has improved over time.

        There may be a rising trend bias as sunspot counting methods improved.

        Then we have satellite measurements since the 1970s, a a completely different methodology for measuring solar energy variations.

        This all adds up to a shaky foundation for any solar energy theories.

        Data mining mediocre quality data creates a high risk of false conclusions.

        Sometimes the best science is “We don’t know”.

        On the other hand, common sense suggests changes in solar output are likely to affect Earth’s temperature. Perhaps indirectly through cosmic ray changes, or some other intermediate step.

        But then there are always unknown causes of climate change.

        How about:
        Changes in extraterrestrial dust reaching our atmosphere ?

        The expanding universe ?

        Underground volcanos releasing CO2 ?

        Changes in the quantity of hot air coming from Al Gore’s mouth ?

        00

        • #
          Mr. Jocelyn Boily

          Richard,

          Yes, I understand the Sun Spots number are proxies for Solar Activity. And actual recent measurements should be used when available. However, long term measures do not exist, and the Sun Spots Data series can be used to fill the gap.

          Regarding the Sun Spots number, the observations are very well documented down to 1800, and recorded down to the 1700 at a more sporadic paste. The reporting of the numbers have been recently adjusted so that the various data series (from different groups) match in term of specifications and standards, leading to better accuracies of the Solar Cycle measure throughout that time.

          Now, the thing is, the Solar cycle is not exactly 11 years, but vary from cycle to cycle in length and in strength. It is now became obvious that there are 2 solar cycles of slightly different length modulating each others, causing a long term variation on the cycle strength.

          The cycles in the last 100 years has been much larger then normal. The current cycle has actually peaked at a lower level. and the next cycle is predicted to be of extremely low level. If there is a link between the Solar Cycles and the Global Temperature, then there should be a strong cooling to be expected over the next few decades.

          I would think this would be quite important to quantify the long term (20 to 100 years ) contribution of the solar Cycles on the Global Temperature. As you point out, the contribution is not limited to the Optical Radiation, but could also be from Cosmic rays and other processes.

          Using only short term data can lead to bias introduce by long term trends in the data, if the long term processes are not considered.

          00

  • #
    dp

    The name for the model is self-named already and is unambiguously the Evans 2015 model.

    10

  • #
    Grant

    Hi Jo, David,

    Will you be sending a copy of this to Minister Hunt, with time before Paris? I would like to know that he had an alternate when he commits us to any folly at the next Climategate talks.
    Also, I’m guessing Lord Monkton is across this as well?
    One thing, this is taking me a while to understand (outside of the pretty pictures). Is there a link that takes us to the “Evan’s Model” to make it easy for constant reference?

    Love your work. Thanks

    00

    • #

      Thanks Grant. We’ll be trying something. Christopher Monckton is aware of our work.

      You’ve got to be aware of the impact of what we are saying — the basic climate model that has guided the whole scare is found to have architectural flaws, that when corrected, show there is no cause for alarm. Most everyone connected to the CO2 theory was focused on the parameter values, none on the architecture. See the next post (19). This will not be an easy paradigm shift for many to swallow, so we need to introduce it gently. On the other hand the Paris Conference is close.

      There is no public info on the model apart from this series of posts. We will be publishing a couple of introductory essays soon for the general public. If there is sufficient demand I might get a book out soon. Ideally there would be enough interest for me to go and talk to people, show them in a lecture, answer their questions. But given the incendiary nature of the message, pigs fly.

      There is only so much self promotion we can or should do. If what we have done is of value, the message to come look at this is much more effective if it comes form others, not from us.

      30

      • #

        Most everyone connected to the CO2 theory was focused on the parameter values, none on the architecture. See the next post (19). This will not be an easy paradigm shift for many to swallow, so we need to introduce it gently.

        Good luck with that. It takes a high level of abstract thinking ability to understand that the architecture of a system has as much or more impact upon system behavior as does its functional elements. I am not so sure those who are locked into the 97% of climate scientists meme as proof of pending climate catastrophe are capable of it. Nor am I convinced that the so called climate scientists that are the 97% are willing to be capable of it either. Their professional identity and perceived means of survival depend upon being totally blind to such things. They live in an impermeable thought box and are not about to attempt to go outside of it. Systems theory is the last thing they want to deal with.

        Keep in mind that the history of science and technology is filled with instances of “the one true way of thinking” that did not pass until the “authorities” died and the younger thought rebels took over. Because of this along with far too much personal experience, I seriously doubt that such a paradigm shift can be accomplished gently. I suspect the best you can do is reach the reachable (there are many) and hang on for dear life until the old guard dies off. I have found that one is never really forgiven for genuinely solving a problem and making it go away. It will be a bumpy ride.

        My approach to the problem is simply making things that work and that serve a valuable purpose. Then sell the things that work to those who value what they can do. The depth and breadth of the thought process that made such things possible is something that few want to know, that fewer are willing to understand, and that fewer still are willing to try to emulate.

        I am not really interested in saving the world or even changing it. I simply want to earn a living by trading what I do best for what others do best. If, in the process I do save and/or change the world, that is OK but it is not my purpose.

        20

        • #

          Lionel, as usual, you are correct, IMHO. I’ve been wrestling with this for many months, and could only come to the same conclusions.

          The only thing that might break your scenario is the remainder of this series, where we put together a fairly strong case for an imminent significant and sustained cooling. It’s only a hypothesis, but it is well worth considering. Of course, if I’m wrong the usual suspects will use that to damn the work on the basic models. If I’m correct, I will simply be reviled and ignored all the more by those usual suspects — but sufficient publicity might force them to behave better, at least in public.

          There is a definite pattern emerging:
          * Those who have skin in the game, who currently derive power, status, or authority from climate science (and that includes some skeptics), tend to ignore, patronize, or deliberately misunderstand this work. I suspect they literally cannot bring themselves to think about it. Not find any problems or mistakes you understand, just want to make it go away. There are exceptions to this observation!
          * Those who derive no benefit from the current power structure in the climate scene find what I have done makes sense and is of interest.

          As you mention, this sort of scenario has played out before in science. Max Planck comes to mind: “Science advances funeral by funeral” (maybe he’d had a bad day).

          20

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            I saw a doco on History the other day regarding the Industrial Revolution.
            In the mid eighteenth century, it was as much due to the English culture and politics that Watt was able to make serious technological advances on the Newcommen steam engine. A good friend of Adam Smith, Watt thrived in an atmosphere entrepreneurial spirit, even though his business skills were not as well hones as his Engineering capacity.
            Meanwhile in France, during the same period, the King mandated that any scientific advances must earn the approval of the bureaucratic Academie de Science.
            Consequently, when the Perrier brothers purchased a Watt steam engine intent on its improvement, the bureaucracy created such a barrier that after a decade the Perrier family had to toss in the towel.
            It was thus the attitudes, the culture, and the parliamentary monarchy that provided the fertile ground in which the English forged ahead with technological development. The economics and philosophy of John Stuart mill (age 13 when Watt died) and his colleagues carried on in England for another two centuries.

            It reminded me of this issue of David’s specifically. If it is consensus, it is not science. If it is science, there is no consensus. If mankind is able to get to grips with this ridiculous thought bubble and scam before the Bunky moon and his United Nutters are able to establish the Bilderberg global monarchy it will be an honest genius like Dr. Evans that uncovers the key to Pandora’s science box.

            20

          • #

            Sadly, the closer to the edge of knowledge and technology you work, your bad days become all too frequent. Yet, I have found that the experience of the breakthrough and being able to demonstrate “it works!” makes up for a long string of bad days. This even in the face of total rejection of what you have made to be obvious.

            The knowledge that you have discovered a truth about the universe and how better to live in and with it has to be sufficient compensation for the doing. That others might learn and adapt what you have found is nice and represents a profit beyond mere compensation. It is something to strive for and even to anticipate but not something easily achieved or necessarily to expect. The central value of all the effort is and must be the discovery of the truth.

            However, all too often, the recognition, acceptance, acclaim, and payout occurs long after you have departed the scene. Thus it could be that one of the funerals Plank spoke of was his own.

            10

            • #
              Vlad the Impaler

              I would add to this discussion that ‘revolutions’ in Science are possible, but rare. It is well known that between 1950 and 1960, the Earth Sciences (my specialty) underwent a complete revolution in the idea of “mobile” continents. Many were my professors who had been ‘old-schooled’ to think that the continents were fixed in place for all of geologic time, yet they fervently taught us youngsters that continental drift/plate tectonics were the correct paradigm.

              Maybe the situation was different; maybe the contradictions of ‘mobile’ vs. ‘static’ continents was ready for a revolution. It just took the J. Tuzo Wilson’s and Harry Hess’s to start the snowball, turned avalanche, to get the old paradigm replaced.

              I see today the size of the financial stake the CAGW-ers have, so as noted above, they cannot afford to have their paradigm replaced. Hard to say, but let us all continue the fight.

              Regards,

              Vlad

              10

  • #
    Robin Brooke-Smith

    This is a truly superb series of papers, for which David Evans deserves all our thanks and congratulations. Much effort, skill and knowledge has gone into this. As Charles Darwin said to his opponents, ‘Veritas magna est et prevalabit’ ‘Truth is great and will prevail’. I just wish there was a way to wake up the cretinous politicians and the credulous leftists. We need to prepare for a lot of dangerous hot air in the run up to the December Climate summit. I am not a scientist, but David’s revised underlying physics model and new estimate of the key climate number – ECS – are very credible. Any chance of getting them published in a peer reviewed journal? It is a sobering fact that the key number – for climate sensitivity – is so contested after so much hype and propaganda about settled science and ‘consensus’. We have to resign ourselves to the fact that people go mad in crowds, but they recover their senses one by one. The madness really is upon the world just now and we urgently need to find a way of hastening the return to sanity. We have been deceived and lied to for too long in what amounts to faith based science.

    21

    • #

      Thanks Robin.

      From the introductory post: “In its complete form this work has evolved into two scientific papers, one about the modelling and mathematical errors in the conventional basic climate model and fixing them (carbon dioxide isn’t the culprit), and another for the revamped notch-delay solar theory (it’s the Sun). Both are currently undergoing peer review. These posts are useful in airing the ideas for comments, and testing the papers for errors.”

      20

      • #
        William Palmer

        The sattelite shows a 15u absorbtion band. Doesn’t this mean that the EMR coming from CO2 is being blocked? If it’s blocked going into space, it must be blocked going to the surface. So there must be a 15u absorbtion band as seen from the surface too. So the energy being absorbed and re-radiated from CO2 is going somewhere else, but not via 15u EMR. Maybe the CO2 molecule is jostling other molecules like water vapor and these are emitting at their own frequency. This seems to be just what you are saying, David. You are a great teacher.

        00

        • #

          William, yes a good proportion of the energy blocked from being emitted to space by extra CO2 is instead, after a bit of jostling, being emitted to space by water vapor molecules. This all happens in the upper atmosphere, without warming the surface. This is the rerouting feedback.

          The rerouting feedback is impossible in the conventional basic climate model, which contains only feedbacks in response to surface warming.

          The rerouting feedback could exist in GCMs, but doesn’t. (The CO2 driver is treated to much the same feedbacks as extra sunlight, both causing large amounts of water vapor amplification — which we know is not happening in reality because of the missing hotspot.)

          10

  • #
    gai

    Interesting find on Stevengoddard’s

    Schneider and Rasool back in 1971 wrote a paper saying:

    We will Report here on the first results of a calculation in which seperate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of Co2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in surface temperature of less than 2°K.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/1971-stunner-nasa-and-ncar-knew-that-catastrophic-global-warming-was-a-farce/#comment-550052

    linked PDF of paper
    http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

    20

  • #

    “With ΔhW ≤ 0, by Eq. (6) the ECS cannot exceed ~1.0 °C. But an ECS of only 1.0 °C is insufficient to explain 80% of the recent warming — there has been about 0.83 °C surface warming just from 1900 to 2013 (HadCrut4, 5 year centered smoothing), that period saw about log2(397/296) or 42% of a CO2 doubling, so the warming due to CO2 should be 42% of the ECS or 0.42 °C due to CO2, but that only accounts for 0.42/0.83 or 51% of the observed warming, well short of the supposed 80%. Therefore μ must be lower.”

    But what if there in fact has just been 0,4 C. of warming from 1900 to 2013 (as the unadjusted data suggest), wouldn’t we end up close to, or under zero, no climate sensitivity at all!? Not even theoretical ..

    20

    • #

      Roald, in this series we are accepting the establishment’s figures on everything and show what happens when the architecture of the conventional basic climate model is fixed.

      But yes, the data problems are a real impediment to finding out what really happened. This will become even more stark in the rest of the series, where we make an hypothesis about what truly caused global warming. It is possible to find clues that allow us to skirt around the worst of the data problems, to at least get some answers.

      Note that we used results from 1973 for much of our conclusion above, which is only just outside the era of more reliable temperature data starting in 1979.

      20

  • #

    Can I just clarify that this is what you’ve actually concluded

    The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.

    If so, this is utterly bizarre. I’m not surprised, of course, but that does not make it not utterly bizarre.

    02

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Would you like to know what is well and truly bizarre?
      Despite 1/3 of all our CO2 emissions being released during the past 18 years the UK Met Office contends there has been no statistically significant warming during this century, and still there are irrational idiots exist that maintain that CO2 is causal.

      20

  • #
    Richard Swarthout

    David

    I suggest, as a means to spreading the word, sending an abstract to Bjorn Stevens; a respected cloud expert unafraid of new and controversial paradigms, and comfortable with polite and honest debate.

    Richard

    10

  • #
    Mike

    Mike, sorry, on the New Science threads, we need commenter’s to stick to topic. So can you post this on another thread. Thanks for understanding. – Jo

    That we are in dire need of “economic climate scientists”. I will post it on a thread about how the economic climate (Money printing.) increases carbon or something like that. Thanks

    35

  • #
    gai

    Weekend Unthreaded coming up shortly Mike.

    10

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    For some reason it comes out late Sunday. But at least it comes out :)

    00