Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

Forum on Physics & Society ^ | 7/15/08 | Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

[ricks_place]

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

Radiative forcing ΔF; The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and The feedback multiplier ƒ. Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

The context

LOBALLY-AVERAGED land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlysideet al., 2008).

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski&Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

Figure 1

Mean global surface temperature anomalies (°C), 2001-2008

Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions – – – – – – –

An early projection of the trend in TS in response to “global warming” was that of Hansen (1988), amplifying Hansen (1984) on quantification of climate sensitivity. In 1988, Hansen showed Congress a graph projecting rapid increases in TS to 2020 through “global warming” (Fig. 2):

Figure 2

Global temperature projections and outturns, 1988-2020

Hansen (1988) projected that global temperature would stabilize (A) if global carbon dioxide concentration were controlled from 1988 and static from 2000: otherwise temperature would rise rapidly (B-C). IPCC (1990) agreed (D). However, these projections proved well above the National Climate Data Center’s outturn (E-F), which, in contrast to the Hadley Center and UAH records (Fig. 1), show a modest rise in temperature from 1998-2007. If McKitrick (2007) (G,H) is correct that temperature since 1980 has risen at only half of the observed rate, outturn tracks Hansen’s CO2 stabilization case (A), although emissions have risen rapidly since 1988.

To what extent, then, has humankind warmed the world, and how much warmer will the world become if the current rate of increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions continues? Estimating “climate sensitivity” – the magnitude of the change in TS after doubling CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 278 parts per million to ~550 ppm – is the central question in the scientific debate about the climate. The official answer is given in IPCC (2007):

“It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in [TS] since the mid-20th century. … The equilibrium global average warming expected if carbon dioxide concentrations were to be sustained at 550 ppm is likely to be in the range 2-4.5 °C above pre-industrial values, with a best estimate of about 3 °C.”

Here as elsewhere the IPCC assigns a 90% confidence interval to “very likely”, rather than the customary 95% (two standard deviations). There is no good statistical basis for any such quantification, for the object to which it is applied is, in the formal sense, chaotic. The climate is “a complex, non-linear, chaotic object” that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory –

more

[ricks_place]

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

1. The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
2. CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
3. Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
4. The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
5. The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
6. “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
7. Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
8. The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
9. It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
10. Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
11. In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

    - Science and Public Policy

[Man50D]

Well yeah sure but if you exclude these facts then human induced global warming is happening!

[rbmillerjr]

global warming bump a baloney

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam Me to Planet Gore !

[JustDoItAlways]

This climate sensitivity estimate is actually the most important number in the entire issue of global warming.

If a doubling of CO2 leads to a 3.5C increase in temperatures, then global warming will be a very significant problem.

If a doubling of CO2 only leads to a 1.0C increase in temperatures, then global warming will be nothing to worry about at all. A 1.0C increase in temps by 2100 with an increase of CO2 fertilizing plants will probably be a very very good thing for the planet. Some time by 3100 we will reach the next doubling plateau and temps will have increased 2.0C. Probably even more of a good thing given that plant production will explode with these kind of CO2 levels.

The data to date and the actual facts that we know about point to the lower climate sensitivity figure. Don’t fix what is not broken and especially don’t ruin a good thing when it is staring you right in the face.

[evad]

HEADLINES FROM THE YEAR 2029

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California .

[dbacks]

IOW, man-made CO2 is moderating the natural cycle of global cooling in recent phoney climate modeling.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto)...."

In other words, Finagle factors were required to get their models to match reality. Some combination of variable constants, fudge factors, and diddle factors was added to the model. Now that the model has been Finagled, it can predict past events with confidence.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Good article. My key takeaways are that the models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not project:

• the multidecadal stasis in “global warming”
• the fall in TS from 1940-1975
• 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002)
• 50 years’ cooling in the Arctic (Soon, 2005)
• the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007)
• the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation
• the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere
• the El Nino/La Nina oscillations
• the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007)
• the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age
• the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007)
• the active 2004 hurricane season nor the inactive subsequent seasons
• the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously)
• the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005)
• the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto
• the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum
• the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century

Other than these few minor quibbles, I'm sure that the models are very useful.

[JasonC]

Great paper, thanks for posting it.

[Bob]

Other than these few minor quibbles, I'm sure that the models are very useful.

Heretic!!!!! :=)

[Fractal Trader]

I thought you might like this one.

[dila813]

Fantastic Paper, I wish I can read the peer review responses.

[Islander7]

Conclusion

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policy making. Even if per impossible the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

[neverdem]

Definitely!

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[Publius6961]

The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880.

Is there anyone alive who can explain exactly what "global records" existed between 1880 and the first weather satellite (1970?).

Who holds these records?
Are they observed or inferred?
How extensive are they? How many stations? Where?

I defy anyone anywhere to present references to these records to document their extent, reliability and accuracy.

This is particularly critical in the two-thirds of our planet's surface covered by water, and clouds and winds and all sorts of inconvenient factors that affect climate.

Need I remind anyone that anything less than 100 years is simply weather, and invalid to discuss climate, which, by definition can only be defined after the fact, and over a period of time considerably greater than 100 years?

[neverdem]

bump & a ping

[Old Professer]

Never mind, the EPA has acted to enforce the Clean Water Act with a special set (Class VI) of regulations to protect groundwater from contamination by CO2 injected for sequestration to combat global warming:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/fs_uic_co2_proposedrule.pdf

[Old Professer]

An excerpt from the new EPA proposed regs:

[What is EPA’s Proposal?
EPA’s proposed rule would establish a new class of injection well—Class VI—and technical criteria for geologic site characterization; area of review and corrective action; well construction and operation; mechanical integrity testing and monitoring; well plugging; post-injection site care; and site closure for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water.
The elements of today’s proposal build upon the existing UIC regulatory framework, with modifications based on the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, including:
•
Geologic site characterization to ensure that GS wells are appropriately sited;
•
Requirements to construct wells with injectate-compatible materials and in a manner that prevents fluid movement into unintended zones;
•
Periodic re-evaluation of the area of review around the injection well to incorporate monitoring and operational data and verify that the CO2 is moving as predicted within the subsurface;
•
Testing of the mechanical integrity of the injection well, ground water monitoring, and tracking of the location of the injected CO2 to ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water;
•
Extended post-injection monitoring and site care to track the location of the injected CO2 and monitor subsurface pressures; and
•
Financial responsibility requirements to assure that funds will be available for well plugging, site care, closure, and emergency and remedial response.
The proposal discusses long term liability for GS operations and seeks comment on this issue as part of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal also includes public participation requirements that would be associated with the issuance of permits for GS wells.]