Blogger Accuses Climate Scientists of 'Manufacturing' Warming

[A-L-E-K]

I think what often gets overlooked in this discussion is what direction would the climate be going right now without AGW. The world was warming before AGW became a real factor. History has witnessed fairly rapid and major temperature changes before...the end result of AGW could depend a lot on if the globe's other factors move towards enhancing or slowing down the warming.

AGW didn't happen to a static system.

 

 

LOL, climate models.  Really?

 

denier board

[ben4vols]

We have a better understanding of the physics of the atmosphere in 2015 than scientists in the 1960s had on how dietary fat and heart disease are connected.

 

There's definitely uncertainty, but the body of scientific research is quite strong in supporting an equilibirum climate sensitivity of >1.5C.

 

I would disagree with you.  I think our understanding of the climate system has barely scratched the surface.  I would also say, reality seems to be bearing out the 1.5C.  That is, unless you start manipulating data as Mr. Heller pointed out in the link to begin this thread. 

[nflwxman]

I would disagree with you. I think our understanding of the climate system has barely scratched the surface. I would also say, reality seems to be bearing out the 1.5C. That is, unless you start manipulating data as Mr. Heller pointed out in the link to begin this thread.

Check your math again. We've warmed 0.9 degree Celsius after increasing CO2 40%.

[StudentOfClimatology]

FWIW, Bloomberg.com has posted graphics showing the temperature impact of natural forcings (solar, earth's orbit, volcanoes) and the growing gap between the observed warming that has been occurring:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Those are just the linear/external forcing(s), though, that we know of. The extent of resonance-based amplification of internal variability and/or feedbacks to any given forcing are largely unknown. In other words, that's a fairly pointless graph.

Using a simple, linear model of external forcing will fail to depict both the ice-age/interglacial cycle and multi-centennial variability.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Check your math again. We've warmed 0.9 degree Celsius after increasing CO2 40%.

About 20-30% of the 1850-present warming was natural, so you can attribute 0.6-0.7C of the warming to anthropogenic forcing. The CO^2 increase during the 1850-1950 window was not enough to account for the majority of the observed temperature increase during that time.

[nflwxman]

About 20-30% of the 1850-present warming was natural, so you can attribute 0.6-0.7C of the warming to anthropogenic forcing. The CO^2 increase during the 1850-1950 window was not enough to account for the majority of the observed temperature increase during that time.

 

Well, let's talk about the period where the surface temperature record is more robust.  1951-2010.  The IPCC essentially calculates the natural attribution at 0.  While they calculate a small aerosol competent of -0.15C (central estimate).  In fact the central estimate of the IPCC in 2013 is 110% of the warming since 1951 is anthropogenic.

 

In 1951 CO2 was at 310 ppm.

 

In 2010 CO2 was at 390 ppm

 

An increase of 26% with a temperature rise of 0.8C.  So using IPCC's 110% central estimate, a 26% increase in C02 would result in approximately 0.88C warming.  Granted, the error bars are pretty huge in this case

 

 

That being said, that doesn't support a TCR less than 1.5C let alone an ECS of that magnitude.

 

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

[stadiumwave]

A few remarks...and this are not intended to be towards anyone specifically:

 

About the notion that 0% of warming since 1950 can be attributed to nature...that's just silly.  It may be humbling to the PHD posters, but anyone that thinks nature didn't attribute to the warming from 1978-1998 doesn't even deserve to have a voice in this matter. It's either pure ignorance or lying.

 

I haven't read where the IPCC has said 0% of the warming since 1950 is from nature.  AR-5 report:

 

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/

 

Percentage of attribution is very difficult to determine.  And without a better understanding of the natural forcing mechanisms than we currently have it's very difficult to determine % of anthropogenic forcings. Yes, we know more than we did 25-50 years ago, but educated humans have a hard time succumbing to the reality that we still have much to learn.

 

There's basically no humility in discussing this issue anymore.

[nflwxman]

A few remarks...and this are not intended to be towards anyone specifically:

 

About the notion that 0% of warming since 1950 can be attributed to nature...that's just silly.  It may be humbling to the PHD posters, but anyone that thinks nature didn't attribute to the warming from 1978-1998 doesn't even deserve to have a voice in this matter. It's either pure ignorance or lying.

 

I haven't read where the IPCC has said 0% of the warming since 1950 is from nature.  AR-5 report:

 

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/

 

Percentage of attribution is very difficult to determine.  And without a better understanding of the natural forcing mechanisms than we currently have it's very difficult to determine % of anthropogenic forcings. Yes, we know more than we did 25-50 years ago, but educated humans have a hard time succumbing to the reality that we still have much to learn.

 

There's basically no humility in discussing this issue anymore.

 

Right, but you forgetting the starting and end points matter quite a bit for attribution.  I was referring very clearly to 1951-2010.  You are forgetting that solar activity really bottomed out in the late 2000s, as did the PDO.  The IPCC directly addressed attribution uncertainty between a range of 50-150% of the warming extremely likely due to humanity.  Again, their best guess was 110%.  That's not to say it's correct, but what humility are you talking about exactly?  We know it's uncertain, but suggesting an ECS 1.5C does not fit with the empirical evidence thus far (which is what I was directly addressing above).  Read the paper above.

 

 

EDIT: In fact, even if you attribute only half the warming, or 0.4C, to a 26% CO2 rise, it still hits a TCR higher than 1.3C.

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

[stadiumwave]

Right, but you forgetting the starting and end points matter quite a bit for attribution. I was referring very clearly to 1951-2010. You are forgetting that solar activity really bottomed out in the late 2000s, as did the PDO. The IPCC directly addressed attribution uncertainty between a range of 50-150% of the warming extremely likely due to humanity. Again, their best guess was 110%. That's not to say it's correct, but what humility are you talking about exactly? We know it's uncertain, but suggesting an ECS 1.5C does not fit with the empirical evidence thus far (which is what I was directly addressing above). Read the paper above.

EDIT: In fact, even if you attribute only half the warming, or 0.4C, to a 26% CO2 rise, it still hits a TCR higher than 1.3C.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

My comments were not directed toward you just climate science in general.

[ORH_wxman]

 

 

EDIT: In fact, even if you attribute only half the warming, or 0.4C, to a 26% CO2 rise, it still hits a TCR higher than 1.3C.

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

 

That wouldn't be calculating TCR correctly...you need to make sure your prior states are good before just taking the warming on face value and of course the aerosol estimates by them have high uncertainty.

 

It makes IPCC's error bars obscenely high. Calculating a TCR for that short of a period of data is almost completely worthless with that type of uncertainty introduced. That is the main reason why the empirical studies try to use much longer periods of data.

[nflwxman]

That wouldn't be calculating TCR correctly...you need to make sure your prior states are good before just taking the warming on face value and of course the aerosol estimates by them have high uncertainty.

 

It makes IPCC's error bars obscenely high. Calculating a TCR for that short of a period of data is almost completely worthless with that type of uncertainty introduced. That is the main reason why the empirical studies try to use much longer periods of data.

 

No doubt.  But I was addressing Bens comment that the empirical evidence supports a low TCR or ECS.  He said something in the 1.3C range.  The uncertainty values are high, but the empirical evidence certaintly does not support a low TCR even if it doesn't completely rule it out.

 

I'm not suggesting climate sensitivity should be resolved off of 50 years of data.  That would be silly.  But like you said the RCP 8.5 models don't pass the "sniff test."  I'm suggesting that same thing with anything lower than a 1.6 TCR.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Well, let's talk about the period where the surface temperature record is more robust. 1951-2010. The IPCC essentially calculates the natural attribution at 0. While they calculate a small aerosol competent of -0.15C (central estimate). In fact the central estimate of the IPCC in 2013 is 110% of the warming since 1951 is anthropogenic.

In 1951 CO2 was at 310 ppm.

In 2010 CO2 was at 390 ppm

An increase of 26% with a temperature rise of 0.8C. So using IPCC's 110% central estimate, a 26% increase in C02 would result in approximately 0.88C warming. Granted, the error bars are pretty huge in this case

That being said, that doesn't support a TCR less than 1.5C let alone an ECS of that magnitude.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

The IPCC doesn't assign a definitive sign for the post-1950 natural contribution (the literature is all over the place on this), and there certainly hasn't been 0.8C of warming since 1950. I'm getting 0.67C on GISS even using the most favorable regression? Where are you getting 0.8C from?

[frontranger8]

denier board

How was my statement denying anything? Pointing out that AGW isn't happening in a vacuum is not denial of AGW.

Go away, troll.

[skierinvermont]

A few remarks...and this are not intended to be towards anyone specifically:

 

About the notion that 0% of warming since 1950 can be attributed to nature...that's just silly.  It may be humbling to the PHD posters, but anyone that thinks nature didn't attribute to the warming from 1978-1998 doesn't even deserve to have a voice in this matter. It's either pure ignorance or lying.

 

I haven't read where the IPCC has said 0% of the warming since 1950 is from nature.  AR-5 report:

 

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/

 

Percentage of attribution is very difficult to determine.  And without a better understanding of the natural forcing mechanisms than we currently have it's very difficult to determine % of anthropogenic forcings. Yes, we know more than we did 25-50 years ago, but educated humans have a hard time succumbing to the reality that we still have much to learn.

 

There's basically no humility in discussing this issue anymore.

 

There is 95% confidence that >50% is GHGs. The central estimate is closer to 110%, since without GHGs, solar and aerosols should have caused cooling and the earth probably would have cooled slightly.

[nflwxman]

The IPCC doesn't assign a definitive sign for the post-1950 contribution (the literature is all over the place on this), and there certainly hasn't been 0.8C of warming since 1950. I'm getting 0.67C on GISS even using the most favorable regression? Where are you getting 0.8C from?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

 

 

0.134C/decade 1951-2010.  6 decades.  .804C total.  It's pretty simple.

[StudentOfClimatology]

What moving average and autocorrelation period are you using? A simple 12 month avg w/o any controls is a silly way to calculate a trend.

[csnavywx]

The IPCC doesn't assign a definitive sign for the post-1950 natural contribution (the literature is all over the place on this), and there certainly hasn't been 0.8C of warming since 1950. I'm getting 0.67C on GISS even using the most favorable regression? Where are you getting 0.8C from?

Ehhhhh... this isn't entirely correct. They have a PDF for nat. vs anth. warming post 1950 with a mean of 110% anth (meaning a negative net contribution from natural sources/internal variability is most likely):

 

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

That's not exactly conclusive. There's no consensus on this in the literature because we don't understand much of what goes into natural climate variability. Anyone can calculate linear forcing contributions from SO^2, CO^2, TSI, etc, but this will still fail to explain the majority of observed inter-millennial climate change through the Holocene.

Unanswered questions:

- Is there an ideal resonance period to the forcing/feedback relationship?

- How/to what extent does TCR/ESC vary over time as the underlying boundary state(s) change (both naturally and anthropogenically, over all time periods)?

- Is the observed variability in the paleo record due to internal resonance(s), external forcing(s), or a combination of both?

Just to name a few.

[stadiumwave]

That's not exactly conclusive. There's no consensus on this in the literature because we don't understand much of what goes into natural climate variability. Anyone can calculate linear forcing contributions from SO^2, CO^2, TSI, etc, but this will still fail to explain the majority of observed inter-millennial climate change through the Holocene.

Unanswered questions:

- Is there an ideal resonance period to the forcing/feedback relationship?

- How/to what extent does TCR/ESC vary over time as the underlying boundary state(s) change (both naturally and anthropogenically, over all time periods)?

- Is the observed variability in the paleo record due to internal resonance(s), external forcing(s), or a combination of both?

Just to name a few.

 

 

This is exactly what I've been referring to.  Great post!

 

The lack of humility in climate science I was referring to is dogmatically act like we do understand what goes into natural climate variability when indeed...per science we do not.  And this also has everything to do with why I do not have high confidence in long-term climate model projections.  If we do not fully understand the natural variability then how can our models be accurate?  They are getting better as we improve our understanding & input what we understand into the models but there's still so much we do not understand talking about those projections with high confidence is just downright foolish.

[nflwxman]

That's not exactly conclusive. There's no consensus on this in the literature because we don't understand much of what goes into natural climate variability. Anyone can calculate linear forcing contributions from SO^2, CO^2, TSI, etc, but this will still fail to explain the majority of observed inter-millennial climate change through the Holocene.

Unanswered questions:

- Is there an ideal resonance period to the forcing/feedback relationship?

- How/to what extent does TCR/ESC vary over time as the underlying boundary state(s) change (both naturally and anthropogenically, over all time periods)?

- Is the observed variability in the paleo record due to internal resonance(s), external forcing(s), or a combination of both?

Just to name a few.

 

 

All you are doing is pointing out there are high uncertainties in attribution science.  Of course it's not conclusive or definitive, but it could just as easily go the other way.  People always seem to think climate science uncertainty is one-sided.  Warming from Co2 could also be 150% of observations according to the report from the IPCC I posted.  

[PhillipS]

ONe of the experts can correct me if I'm wrong, but TCR isn't sensitive to boundary conditions.  It is defined as the global temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 equivalent (CO2e).  For all TCR references I've seen the initial CO2 level is given as 280 PPM, so the TCR is the projected CO2e is 560 ppm.  Currently the CO2e is around 480 ppm.

 

[link]

[nflwxman]

ONe of the experts can correct me if I'm wrong, but TCR isn't sensitive to boundary conditions. It is defined as the global temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). For all TCR references I've seen the initial CO2 level is given as 280 PPM, so the TCR is the projected CO2e is 560 ppm. Currently the CO2e is around 480 ppm.

[link]

Great question, Phillip. I would imagine there would have to be another accounting for GHGs other than CO2, even if many of those are not well mixed. However, aerosols (cooling) would need to be accounted for in any GHG index for TCR. Are those in that 470 number?

[StudentOfClimatology]

ONe of the experts can correct me if I'm wrong, but TCR isn't sensitive to boundary conditions. It is defined as the global temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). For all TCR references I've seen the initial CO2 level is given as 280 PPM, so the TCR is the projected CO2e is 560 ppm. Currently the CO2e is around 480 ppm.

[link]

That's actually false.

Over time, the TCR is governed by the exchange rate from the sea surface into the deeper oceans. A mere change in global circulation, wind speeds, etc, can significantly change both the TCR and even ESC as well. There is evidence that forcings on certain frequencies (timescales) inflict more constructive interference and destructive interference, and visa versa.

Neither the TCR or ESC is constant, so long as the planetary boundary state is in flux (which it always is).

[PhillipS]

That's actually false.

Over time, the TCR is governed by the exchange rate from the sea surface into the deeper oceans. A mere change in global circulation, wind speeds, etc, can significantly change both the TCR and even ESC as well. There is evidence that forcings on certain frequencies (timescales) inflict more constructive interference and destructive interference, and visa versa.

Neither the TCR or ESC is constant, so long as the planetary boundary state is in flux (which it always is).

 

Ah, SOC, perhaps I wasn't clear but you gave up any claim to 'expert' when you tried claiming that there was a 'Minoan Warm Period'.  You credibility is too low to distinguish from zero.

 

The definition of TCR given in the IPCC TAR [link]:

 

TCR - Transient climate response

Figure 9.1: Global mean temperature change for 1%/yr CO₂ increase with subsequent stabilisation at 2xCO₂ and 4cCO₂. The red curves are from a coupled AOGCM simulation (GFDL_R15_a) while the green curves are from a simple illustrative model with no exchange of energy with the deep ocean. The 'transient climate response', TCR, is the temperature change at the time of CO₂ doubling and the 'equilibrium climate sensitivity', T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO₂, i.e., after the 'additional warming commitment' has been realised.

 

The temperature change at any time during a climate change integration depends on the competing effects of all of the processes that affect energy input, output, and storage in the ocean. In particular, the global mean temperature change which occurs at the time of CO₂ doubling for the specific case of a 1%/yr increase of CO₂ is termed the 'transient climate response' (TCR) of the system. This temperature change, indicated in Figure 9.1, integrates all processes operating in the system, including the strength of the feedbacks and the rate of heat storage in the ocean, to give a straightforward measure of model response to a change in forcing. The range of TCR values serves to illustrate and calibrate differences in model response to the same standardised forcing. Analogous TCR measures may be used, and compared among models, for other forcing scenarios.

[ORH_wxman]

Just as a review from earlier discussions on this topic in case people missed it previously, or forgot:

 

TCR is defined mathematically in chapter 10 of AR5 as follows:

 

TCR = F_2xCO2 ⨯ ΔT / ΔF

 

Where F_2xCO2 is the known 3.71 W/M² for a doubling. ΔT  of course is the change in temperature which is pretty well estimated. The biggest uncertainty is ΔF. The largest uncertainty within ΔF is the aerosol forcing.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Ah, SOC, perhaps I wasn't clear but you gave up any claim to 'expert' when you tried claiming that there was a 'Minoan Warm Period'. You credibility is too low to distinguish from zero.

You're an uneducated hack with no atmospheric science knowledge to speak of, so you don't have any grounds to judge credibility, and certainly you have no business interpreting proxy/paleoclimate data. You're irrelevant to me.

I can try to help answer your question(s) if you'd like, but it won't bother me at all if you'd prefer to wear that tinfoil on your melon.

The temperature change at any time during a climate change integration depends on the competing effects of all of the processes that affect energy input, output, and storage in the ocean. In particular, the global mean temperature change which occurs at the time of CO₂ doubling for the specific case of a 1%/yr increase of CO₂ is termed the 'transient climate response' (TCR) of the system. This temperature change, indicated in Figure 9.1, integrates all processes operating in the system, including the strength of the feedbacks and the rate of heat storage in the ocean, to give a straightforward measure of model response to a change in forcing. The range of TCR values serves to illustrate and calibrate differences in model response to the same standardised forcing. Analogous TCR measures may be used, and compared among models, for other forcing scenarios.[/b]

That's exactly what I said, almost word for word. See my quoted post below. What do you think governs energy flow/storage? The answer is is the exchange rate between the ocean and atmosphere:

Over time, the TCR is governed by the exchange rate from the sea surface into the deeper oceans. A mere change in global circulation, wind speeds, etc, can significantly change both the TCR and even ESC as well. There is evidence that forcings on certain frequencies (timescales) inflict more constructive interference and destructive interference, and visa versa.

Neither the TCR or ESC is constant, so long as the planetary boundary state is in flux (which it always is).

[AvantHiatus]

This probably belongs in this thread. Afterall it is full of hyperbolic misinformation.

 

[csnavywx]

Great question, Phillip. I would imagine there would have to be another accounting for GHGs other than CO2, even if many of those are not well mixed. However, aerosols (cooling) would need to be accounted for in any GHG index for TCR. Are those in that 470 number?

480 is the CO2e number (last calc I heard was 483 for April), but aerosols are sufficiently strong to cancel out almost all of the additional forcing from those non-Co2 GHGs, so the CO2 reading alone is sufficient for a rough estimate of net forcing.

 

This will become less true with time though, as we're not likely to see significant increases in aerosols (barring another big coal boom somewhere) and the CO2e rate of increase will probably be a better gauge than CO2 alone. Burning coal is a bit of a Faustian bargain, in that when it is burned, it offsets some of the longer term warming via short-term SO2 aerosol loading. If we starting seeing a decline in anthropogenic aerosols for instance, net forcing will increase even faster than than the CO2e number would suggest.

 

If I remember correctly, the CO2e increase y-o-y is around 2.5-2.8 ppm/yr -- a good deal higher than the base CO2 trendline of 2.1 currently.

[AvantHiatus]

480 is the CO2e number (last calc I heard was 483 for April), but aerosols are sufficiently strong to cancel out almost all of the additional forcing from those non-Co2 GHGs, so the CO2 reading alone is sufficient for a rough estimate of net forcing.

 

This will become less true with time though, as we're not likely to see significant increases in aerosols (barring another big coal boom somewhere) and the CO2e rate of increase will probably be a better gauge than CO2 alone. Burning coal is a bit of a Faustian bargain, in that when it is burned, it offsets some of the longer term warming via short-term SO2 aerosol loading. If we starting seeing a decline in anthropogenic aerosols for instance, net forcing will increase even faster than than the CO2e number would suggest.

 

If I remember correctly, the CO2e increase y-o-y is around 2.5-2.8 ppm/yr -- a good deal higher than the base CO2 trendline of 2.1 currently.

An insane and unsustainable rate by all metrics. It's time to get serious about these issues.

[Mallow]

What moving average and autocorrelation period are you using? A simple 12 month avg w/o any controls is a silly way to calculate a trend.

 

Why? The autocorrelation period has nothing to do with the trend (it is only used to calculate the confidence bounds). The moving average length also doesn't affect the trend at all. Why would it? It's the same data.

 

The trend is calculated how a trend is calculated--fit a linear best-fit curve through the data and read off the slope. If that's a "silly" way to calculate a trend, you might want to bring it up with... well, every scientist who discusses trends.