THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I notice that Mauna Loa CO2 levels have dropped yet global Co2 levels have not, I thought Mauna Loa was global.
Bobclive
The first article has various graphics showing the lack of mixing. Mauna Loa is on a volcanic island with volcanic outgassing into the sea and a warm ocean that is permanently outgassing as well. It is the worst possible place to site the worlds most iconic co2 meaasuring station
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/A_EGU2008/YungEGU08CO2/SCIENCE%20CO2_Paper_V2F%20copy.pdf
This is an excellent article about non mixing of co2 and that it follows the jet stream
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov:80/story_archive/Measuring_CO2_from_Space/
The ML equipment is pretty unique and delivers information that may not reflect the real world. Measurements from say Barrow should show a much bigger drop this year. As it is co2 is levelling off and with cooler air and ocean temperatures-equipment and politics permitting-should actually fall even at ML eventually as the man made portion of co2 is a tiny fraction of the natural absorption that takes place in cooler times.
TonyB
Tony/Bob,
Please correct me if I’m wrong; however, I read the overall increase is slightly higher (.21 from 383.90 December 2007 to 384.11 December 2008) with the growth rate at .21 in 2008 vs 2.14 increase in 2007.
Substantial decrease in growth rate but an increase nonetheless.
Mean Interpolated Trend
2007 12 383.90 383.90 384.81
2008 12 384.11 384.11 385.03
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
2008 0.24
The growth rate stat came from #3613 and the overall year to date Mean increase from #3615.
Brute
I agree with your analysis and thought I said that;
“As it is co2 is levelling off and with cooler air and ocean temperatures-equipment and politics permitting-should actually fall even at ML eventually as the man made portion of co2 is a tiny fraction of the natural absorption that takes place in cooler times.”
This is a substantial levelling off but Im not getting too excited as there tends to be ‘adjustments’ that will be made over the next few weeks.
TonyB
Brute
By coincidence WUWT has just done a posting on ML
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/mauna-loa-co2-record-posts-smallest-yearly-gain-in-its-history/
I will hold fire until the results are confirmed but other colder locations should in theory start actually dropping.
tonyB
Tonyb,
You probably did and I misunderstood. The way that I posted all of that information was confusing and disjointed; as well as sepearated by typographical errors and apologies.
I brought this up awhile ago…..but could it be that since temperatures are dropping like a dress on prom night, (which they can’t hide/explain away forever)….. could the Powers That Be “adjust” CO2 downward in order to show cause and effect thereby their efforts at reducing CO2 are bearing fruit, (causing temperatures to drop/stabilize)?
They need to justify tax increases and regulation…..temperatures are dropping…..they show a sudden decrease in CO2 and state that their “program” is working.
Overall the CO2 number is higher this year over last….just not as much….. but still, an increase.
I’ll have to give this some thought…….
Brute
My own original post was probably clumsily worded.
Yes I’m expecting the warmists to seize on this reduction as ‘proof’ of some kind-less petrol being used a few months ago and less economic activity equals less co2, so if we stop using less fuel it will continue to drop and…
Of course this drop relates to probably a year or two ago, way before the down turn-however no one really knows the time lag between cause and effect although Im sure its not the 800 years quoted in ice cores. I’m also sure that current co2 levels are nothing out of the ordinary
What we are seeing is a perfectly natural reaction to falling temperatures but it will be interesting to see what hansen et al make of it.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
My next-to-last paragraph got garbled.
It should read: “As a rational skeptic, I will question statements made by lobby groups, such as IPCC, the WWF and other environmental activist groups as well as any openly anti-AGW lobby group until they can be proven to my satisfaction to be correct. Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.”
Regards,
Max
BobClive has pointed out one of the most insiduous hazards, which has largely gone unnoticed, a threat, which kills close to half a million people annually worldwide: dydrogenoxide, also known as liquid hydric acid (there is no recorded death from carbon dioxide, as far as I have seen, but Peter can correct me on this if he has othe data).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1123013
It is incidentally also an infinitely more potent and prevalent “greenhouse gas” than CO2.
We are definitely going after the wrong hazard, here. Ban dihydrogen monoxide!
I’m sure Peter will agree wholeheartedly, once he sees these alarming statistics.
Max
Max,
The big problem with atmospheric Physics is that nothing is simple. Certainly nowhere as simple as you pretend it to be with your arrogant ‘Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.’ approach. However, lets have a try to make sense of the 2x CO2 issue as best we can without computer models.
We can say that Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2
where Delta T is the temperature change we can expect from a forcing Delta F ,measured as power per unit area. C1 is the ‘no feedback’ constant. C2 is an additional constant to represent feed-backs in the system.
As you have previously referenced yourself, Delta F is generally considered, see for example Myrhe (1998), to be:
Delta F(2xCO2) = 5.35 ln(560/280) = 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 W m–2.
C1 can be calculated from
C1 = 1 / 4 [sigma] T^3)
Where sigma (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equals 5.6705E-08 W/m^2*K^4
You have used a value of T =288 deg for the average temperature of the earth’s surface which gives a value for C1 of 0.184 degK m-2
You’ve left the feed-backs out of it, making C2 =1, and come up with a value of:
Delta T = 3.708 x 0.184 = 0.7 deg C
There is a problem with this calculation. 288 deg C may be the average temperature of the earth’s surface but it’s not the average temperature of the surface of the atmosphere. The surface of the atmosphere is not easy to define. Nevertheless there will be some altitude which can be used to define an equilibrium level at which the ‘radiation out’ is equal to the ‘radiation in’. I need to do some more research to find out what this is likely to be, and what temperature it will represent, but it will be well below 288 deg K.
If it were 245 deg K ( or -28 deg C) your figure of 0.7deg K becomes 1.1 deg K. Before you protest too much, you might just like to know that Lindzen himself often quotes a figure of ‘about 1 deg K’ for the ‘nofeedback’ value. See for example his recent testimony to Britain’s House of Lords. Calculations of C1 do vary. 0.3 degK m-2 often seems to be used but 0.184 degK m-2 is too low a figure.
What about the feedbacks? What is the value of C2? That is the big question of course. If the climate modellers, and those who have calculated on the basis of paleoclimates, are right it is going to be about 2.5 to 4.
I think what you’ve been driving at is that the measured increase in temperatures since CO2 values started to rise above their preindustrial level is inconsistent with C2 being this high. Maybe. Lets see.
I think we have previously agreed that the already occurred increase of CO2 levels from 280 ppmv to 385 ppmv should, due to the logarithmic nature of the temperature v CO2 concentration relationship, take us to 45% of the 2xCO2 temperature rise. Lindzen has made a similar argument. Except that he seems to have got it slightly wrong in claiming 75% instead of 45%. In other words Delta F = 1.66 Wm-2. Lindzen has made another oversight. He’s forgotten that some of this extra energy, 0.6 wm-2, is currently being absorbed by the oceans. This needs to be subtracted from 1.66 wm-2 to give 1.06 Wm-2 It would be nice if we could make this subtraction for ever. But as the ocean warms, the less effectively it will be able to soak up excess heat.
The global average temperature increase since 1850 is about 0.8 deg C. And yes I know you’ll try to get that figure down but the graphs show that we’ve gone from -0.4 deg to +0.4 deg on the usual anomaly scale.
Let’s say you are correct with your attribution of 0.3 deg C to solar effects. Let’s say too that everything else cancels out as you are claiming. What is C2?
C2 = Delta T /(Delta F x C1) = 0.5 /(1.06 x 0.3) = 1.57
Of course if you aren’t right about there being 0.3 deg of solar warming C2, the feedback factor, becomes more like 2 or even 2.5.
In conclusion, although there are some differences between the various approaches to answering the ‘2x Co2’ question, they are not so great as to justify doing nothing to try to mitigate the AGW problem.
Tonyb,
The monthly number for December CO2 is inaccrate. How typical……makes one wonder which other figures are inaccurate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/mauna-loa-co2-record-posts-smallest-yearly-gain-in-its-history/
Brute
This sounds like a repeat of the Russian temperatures fiasco when the Sept figures were repeated for October. However Tans seems a reasonable person so we can only assume it was a genuine mistake. I’m waiting to see how it all plays out when the real December figures are factored in as per my #3630.
Hopefully Tans will realise everyone is focused on him and will get the real results out quickly for 2008
tonyb
Tonyb,
We all make mistakes; however, it seems to me that this is happening with more frequency and I believe it’s because people are watching more closely…..(they’re getting caught more often).
I work very closely with different government agencies and the prevailing attitude is “close enough for government work”.
You see, there is no dedicated commitment to “getting it right the first time”. There is absolutely no fear of termination or even admonishment for making serious mistakes.
This attitude permeates the typical government worker ethic which is why I consider all of this work suspect. Even if one aspect of the piece of the puzzle is inaccurate, it skews the project’s conclusions as a whole.
I applaud Mr. Tans for his candor and integrity, but I know that numerous other government officials should and could have double checked these numbers before publication; especially such a dramatic anomaly as this…..it was staring them right in the face……hell, I noticed it within the first 5 seconds and I’m a moron.
The bottom line is that they simply, collectively, don’t give a damn.
Is Global Warming a Sin.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it’s at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn’t even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere’s CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
Interesting.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04282007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html
1929 world depression
Wall Street collapsed catastrophically, setting off a chain of bankruptcies and defaults which spread across the world. Factories and businesses closed, workers plunged into poverty in millions, houses and farms were repossessed, crops which could not be sold were dumped into the sea. By late 1932, share prices had fallen to 20 percent of their 1929 value and 11,000 of the United States’ 25,000 banks had collapsed, manufacturing output had fallen to half its 1929 level, and 25 to 30% of workers throughout the world were unemployed and with no means of support.World war2 brought an end to this depression of 1929 – 1941 and anthropogenic CO2 kept on steadily rising.
There are even times when CO2 has decreased, i.e. removed from the atmosphere, from year to year. These times were roughly 1820, 1831-1838, times before wide-scale industrialization, and 1942-1944. 1942 to 1944? This was certainly a time in which the entire world, if you recall, was intent on adding as much of everything to the atmosphere that it possibly could. So this result is strange. One possibility is measurement error: something might have gone wrong in the way the ice cores were processed.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/06/has-atmospheric-co2-decreased-a-different-way-to-look-at-co2-changes/
Pete, Reur 3635,
I notice that true to form, you have not responded to the points in Max’s 3625, that indicate some of your errors; that you refuse to admit. This is much in the same way that you were stubborn, long term, refusing to admit that you used a WRONG graphical smoothing method.
Not wishing to interfere, with Max’s observations of various facts that are in conflict with your dogma, I’d like to point-out one thing about the Minschwaner and Dessler paper that Max has cited. Andrew Dessler is an atmospheric physicist (climatologist), that strongly supports the arguments of the IPCC, and has made many blog lead-posts over at Gristmill. He also ridicules other scientists that are not “Of the Consensus”. He is a true fundamentalist just like you, but is far better qualified than you to comment on climate sensitivity, and derives convincingly a much lower value than you would like.
Even though I dislike his arrogance and elitism, I think you should take note of what he says, because it is counter intuitive that such a clever scientist would contradict the IPCC, when at the same time he gives such vigorous support to it. He must be very confidant of his model and the observed experimental confirmation!
BTW, you might be interested in this supportive NASA article on his observations on water vapour in the atmosphere
BobClive,
You are right, a 30% cut in CO2 emissions would not cut atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Just less than half ( I think the exact figure is 45%) of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the world’s forests and oceans. They are doing a pretty good job and need to be looked after. But, of course as emissions rise the percentage figure will fall even if the actual amount of carbon absorbed remains the same.
Conversely, if emissions fall by 55% and the amount of carbon absorbed remains the same, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will remain constant.
Emissions would need to be reduced by more than 55% for atmospheric CO2 concentrations to fall.
Bob_FJ,
Are you still complaining about the way Excel applies its smoothing lines? You really are a ‘whingeing Pom’ aren’t you?
Look, on the general time scale of the AGW problem, an offset of 2.5 years on a graphical line is neither here nor there.
Just to keep you happy, if you can send me an example of an Excel file, in fact any other spreadsheet program will do, showing how you’d like it done, with examples of the averaging factor N being either even or odd, I’ll take a look. If you can’t figure out a way to post it, just email the file to Tony and I’m sure he’ll be happy to forward it on.
As the expression goes, either put up or shut up!
Peter you misunderstand, it is not a cut of 30% CO2 emissions, it is a cut of 30% of total global manufacturing output for over 10 years, that is not the same.
That depression would obviously include the largest polluters and could account for far more than 30% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, concrete, coal fired power stations, cars etc, if they are, as your grouping suggest, the main causes.
If you cannot find a downwards trend in the CO2 curve then either CO2 was far higher prior to the 1929 crash or anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increase prior to 1998.
If the greatest global economic crash in recent history did not effect the rise in CO2 what idiotic scheme do you suggest will stop the increase now.
Peter, manufacturing actually dropped by 39%.
In the Great Depression, deflation reigned. Consumer prices fell about a quarter from 1929 to 1933. Spending collapsed. Supply swamped demand, driving prices down. By 1933, manufacturing output had dropped 39 percent and joblessness had reached 25 percent and that was just the US.
Don`t just look at temperature and CO2.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110901897_pf.html
Taken from Realclimate 27 April 2007.
Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. What year did Gore make is misinformation film.
BobClive,
It doesn’t really matter whether the exact figure was 30% or 40%. The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppmv. As a result of the industrial revolution, the level crept up to just over 300 ppm by the onset of the Great Depression. The increase of 20 ppm was primarily due to the accumulated emissions from fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If the Great Depression had cut the burning of fossil fuels to zero, the result would have been the gradual decrease, over a long period, from 300 ppm back down to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.
Nobody should expect a 30 percent decrease in the 300 ppm level of atmospheric CO2, because 280 ppm is natural. Instead you expect a 30 percent slowdown in the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.
Hi Peter,
Since you answered with a rather long message (3635), defending the notion of positive feedbacks leading to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of “2.5 to 4C”, I will go through the key points point separately.
You wrote, “The big problem with atmospheric Physics is that nothing is simple. Certainly nowhere as simple as you pretend it to be with your arrogant ‘Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.’ approach. However, lets have a try to make sense of the 2x CO2 issue as best we can without computer models.”
I have no particular comment to your observation “that nothing is simple” “with atmospheric Physics”. In fact I would argue that there are many things in this complex subject about which current science (and especially IPCC) is still totally in the dark. The AGW oversimplification of explaining essentially all current and future climate change on anthropogenic factors is a gross oversimplification that truly borders on arrogance.
You added, “We can say that Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2
where Delta T is the temperature change we can expect from a forcing Delta F ,measured as power per unit area. C1 is the ‘no feedback’ constant. C2 is an additional constant to represent feed-backs in the system.”
The relationship is logarithmic a doubling of CO2 has the same effect from 280 to 560 ppmv as it would from 560 to 1120 ppmv.
Lindzen has pointed this out in the curve, which I posted (3158). A four-fold CO2 increase would result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of 1.29C, according to Lindzen, and a doubling of CO2 would result in 0.65C:
ln4 = 1.39 (CO2 increase from 280 to 1120 ppmv)
ln2 = 0.69 (CO2 increase from 280 to 560 ppmv)
Using Lindzen’s basis we should have had warming (from “pre-industrial” CO2 level of 280 ppmv to today’s 385 ppmv:
385 / 280 = 1.375
ln1.375 = 0.3185
dT = 0.30C
As I showed you the total linear warming over the Hadley record from 1850 to 2008 was 0.65C. Many studies by solar experts tell us that the unusually high solar activity (the highest in several thousands of years) was responsible for 0.35C.
This leaves 0.30C for the net impact of all anthropogenic forcing factors (which IPCC has stated is essentially the same as that for CO2, since other anthropogenic factors cancel each other out).
This is exactly the amount of warming from CO2 over this period as estimated using Lindzen’s figures. (It looks like Lindzen was “spot on” with his 2xCO2 temperature impact , or “climate sensitivity”, of 0.65C!)
In other words, over the period 1850 to 2008 it was physically observed that the net impact of all “feedbacks” (C2) was equal to 1.
Using your Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2 (where C2 is a multiplier for various feedbacks) depends, of course, on the value chosen for C2.
So far we have one set of physically observed data (the Hadley record and the solar impact) that confirms a “C2” in your formula = 1 and a 2xCO2 temperature impact of 0.65C.
Your formula now becomes:
Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2 (where C2 is 1)
As I pointed out to you (3469), IPCC has a different “take” on this (apparently also your “belief”):
In its AR4 report Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
Based on these model-derived feedback forcings, IPCC calculates that the 2xCO2 feedback temperature response would be:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+1.5°C [Water Vapor]
-0.8°C [Lapse Rate]
+0.7°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.5°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.9°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
+1.3°C [Clouds]
+3.2°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633)
Latest “scientific” data (which I explained in detail in 3469) enable us to update and correct the IPCC assumptions, as follows:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+0.4°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.2°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631, corrected for Minschwaner and Dessler study)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.6°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
-1.0°C [Clouds] (corrected for Spencer et al. plus Norris observations)
+0.6°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633, corrected for both clouds and water vapor)
The physical observations on cloud feedbacks (Spencer and Norris) confirm the strongly negative feedback from clouds with warming, rather than the strongly positive feedback assumed by IPCC, albeit with the disclaimer that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
IPCC’s “uncertainty” on clouds has been cleared up. The feedback has been physically observed to be strongly negative (in two independent studies using different methods).
IPCC has also overestimated the positive feedback from water vapor in its assumption that relative humidity remains constant with increased temperature. The physical observations on water vapor increase with temperature (Minschwaner + Dessler) show that this is only a fraction of that theoretically derived and assumed by the IPCC models, since relative humidity decreases with temperature.
This is “practice” rather than pure “theory” and model assumptions, Peter.
These physical observations again reconfirm the validity of Lindzen’s estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.65C.
In fact, the net impact of all feedbacks is slightly negative (due to the strongly negative feedback from clouds), thereby conforming that your “C2” is <1.
So we arrive at the same conclusion from several different directions:
The 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” is somewhere around 0.6 to 0.65C, based on actual physical observations (rather than theoretical model assumptions).
As I pointed out in 3469:
“To summarize: the observed facts [practice] confirm that you can bury the model-created [theory] “3.2C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2”, and with it the case for alarming warming from AGW.”
This case is based on theoretical gobbledygook, model assumptions and hype.
Your hypothetical question on “the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere” being used in the theoretical greenhouse calculation is irrelevant: the physical observations (practice) show that the computer model assumptions (theory) are incorrect.
You would do well, Peter, to heed the simple advice of the great American baseball player, coach and philosopher, Yogi Berra:
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
[Sent this once already, but it appears it did not go through the first time.]
Since you answered with a rather long message (3635), defending the notion of positive feedbacks leading to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of “2.5 to 4C”, I will go through the key points point separately.
You wrote, “The big problem with atmospheric Physics is that nothing is simple. Certainly nowhere as simple as you pretend it to be with your arrogant ‘Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.’ approach. However, lets have a try to make sense of the 2x CO2 issue as best we can without computer models.”
I have no particular comment to your observation “that nothing is simple” “with atmospheric Physics”. In fact I would argue that there are many things in this complex subject about which current science (especially IPCC) is still totally in the dark. The AGW oversimplification of explaining essentially all current and future climate change on anthropogenic factors is a gross oversimplification that truly borders on arrogance.
You added, “We can say that Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2
where Delta T is the temperature change we can expect from a forcing Delta F ,measured as power per unit area. C1 is the ‘no feedback’ constant. C2 is an additional constant to represent feed-backs in the system.”
The relationship is logarithmic a doubling of CO2 has the same effect from 280 to 560 ppmv as it would from 560 to 1120 ppmv.
Lindzen has pointed this out in the curve, which I posted (3158). A four-fold CO2 increase would result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of 1.29C, according to Lindzen, and a doubling of CO2 would result in 0.65C:
ln4 = 1.39 (CO2 increase from 280 to 1120 ppmv)
ln2 = 0.69 (CO2 increase from 280 to 560 ppmv)
Using Lindzen’s basis we should have had warming (from “pre-industrial” CO2 level of 280 ppmv to today’s 385 ppmv:
385 / 280 = 1.375
ln1.375 = 0.3185
dT = 0.30C
As I showed you the total linear warming over the Hadley record from 1850 to 2008 was 0.65C. Many studies by solar experts tell us that the unusually high solar activity (the highest in several thousands of years) was responsible for 0.35C.
This leaves 0.30C for the net impact of all anthropogenic forcing factors (which IPCC has stated is essentially the same as that for CO2, since other anthropogenic factors cancel each other out).
This is exactly the amount of warming from CO2 over this period as estimated using Lindzen’s figures. (It looks like Lindzen was “spot on” with his 2xCO2 temperature impact , or “climate sensitivity”, of 0.65C!)
In other words, over the period 1850 to 2008 it was physically observed that the next impact of all “feedbacks” (C2) was equal to 1.
Using your Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2 (where C2 is a multiplier for various feedbacks) depends, of course, on the value chosen for C2.
So far we have one set of physically observed data (the Hadley record and the solar impact) that confirms a “C2” in your formula = 1 and a 2xCO2 temperature impact of 0.65C.
Your formula now becomes:
Delta T = Delta F x C1 x C2 (where C2 is 1)
As I pointed out to you (3469), IPCC has a different “take” on this, which apparently is the same as your “belief”:
In its AR4 report Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
Based on these model-derived feedback forcings, IPCC calculates that the 2xCO2 feedback temperature response would be:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+1.5°C [Water Vapor]
-0.8°C [Lapse Rate]
+0.7°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.5°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.9°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
+1.3°C [Clouds]
+3.2°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633)
Latest “scientific” data (which I explained in detail in 3469) enable us to update and correct the IPCC assumptions, as follows:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+0.4°C [Net, Water Vapor + Lapse Rate]
+1.2°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631, corrected for Minschwaner and Dessler study)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.6°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
-1.0°C [Clouds] (corrected for Spencer et al. plus Norris observations)
+0.6°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633, corrected for both clouds and water vapor)
The physical observations on cloud feedbacks (Spencer and Norris) confirm the strongly negative feedback from clouds, rather than the strongly positive feedback assumed by IPCC, albeit with the disclaimer that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
IPCC’s “uncertainty” on clouds has been cleared up. The feedback has been physically observed to be strongly negative (in two independent studies using different methods).
IPCC has also overestimated the positive feedback from water vapor in its assumption that relative humidity remains constant with increased temperature. The physical observations on water vapor increase with temperature (Minschwaner + Dessler) show that this is only a fraction of that theoretically derived and assumed by the IPCC models, as the relative humidity decreases with increased temperature.
This is “practice” rather than pure “theory” and model assumptions.
These physical observations again reconfirm the validity of Lindzen’s estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.65C.
In fact, the net impact of all feedbacks is slightly negative (due to the strongly negative feedback from clouds), thereby conforming that your “C2” is <1.
So we arrive at the same conclusion from several different directions:
The 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” is somewhere around 0.6 to 0.65C, based on actual physical observations (rather than model assumptions).
As I pointed out in 3469:
“To summarize: the observed facts [practice] confirm that you can bury the model-created [theory] “3.2C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2”, and with it the case for alarming warming from AGW.”
This case is based on theoretical gobbledygook, model assumptions and hype.
Your hypothetical question on “the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere” being used in the theoretical greenhouse calculation is irrelevant: the physical observations (practice) show that the computer model assumptions (theory) are incorrect.
You would do well, Peter, to heed the simple advice of the great American baseball player, coach and philosopher, Yogi Berra:
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 3643, you wrote in part:
Pete! It seems you did not understand (or read?) my 3599/24 etc, but after deleting your offensive remarks, I’ll try again to explain what you fail to admit:
[1] NO, I have never complained about the way Excel applies its smoothing lines, but just that whatever you did, it was WRONG. Part of the difficulty for me to examine Excel for you is that my version was a 2008 60-day trial in my new computer which has expired, and thus I don’t use it. But anyway, you have not advised what version you have. Recently, when I twigged the nature of your error, I advised you that early versions of Excel appear to only offer “automated” Prior Moving Average, (PMA) which is WRONG for scientific time series data. You should be using Centre Moving Average, (CMA) for this application. (PMA has some different applications in finance and business)
[2] You are WRONG again Pete! In assessing curvilinear trend, those 2.5 years make a big difference. Here follows a graphic from my 2915/20, and the properly located green worm gives a very different picture to your original WRONG worm recoloured pale grey. (even more so if 2008 were included) You might do yourself a favour and read the tutorial for that graph. (2915/20)
[3] Don’t be silly Pete, just do it the same way that it is done by scientists for time series data, that is; use CMA, not PMA.
If your version of excel is 2007, try the following link discussing CMA at item 18.2 and 18.3.
If an earlier Excel version, try using THIS or THIS.
Now perhaps you could be a good boy and redo your graph in your 3543/24 using the correct CMA method.