Climate Sensitivity: which do you believe-models or data?

Climate sensitivity (expected change in global temperature due to a doubling of CO2 levels/Watts per sq meter (°C/(W/m²))) according to actual data:

• Spencer:   .18         (see slide below, recent satellite data)
• Lindzen:   .08 -.3   (derived from WSJ article about pre-publication results)
• Monckton:   .12     (see slide below)
• Paltridge:   .1 - .3   (based on NCEP trends, figure 10 of paper)
• Schwartz:  .3           (paper)
• Spectroscopic data without feedbacks:  .3  (see slide below, and derived from GISS email)

And according to the fictitious GIGO computer models of:

• IPCC:   .55 - 1.1      (see Dr. Spencer's & Monckton's slides below; average .88)
• NASA/GISS:   1.135     (derived from recently released NASA/GISS emails)

which incorporate imaginary mystical positive feedback amplification factors as much as 14 times higher (1.135/.08) than what the empirical data shows.

Which do you believe?

From Dr. Roy Spencer's Lecture: (part 2)

From Lord Monckton's Lecture:

(Note some figures approximated from graphs. Note any sensitivity number less than the 0.3 °C/(W/m²) derived from spectroscopic data implies that the net feedback is negative not positive)

Related: Climate models and the laws of physics

Related: Theoretical derivation of Sensitivity (~.3)

Related: A Critical Examination of Climate Change

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman,  Nobel Laureate in Physics

Still Waiting

From Science October 1, 2009:

This article from October 2009 states that 10 year pauses in global warming occur only around 2% of the time in the Hadley CRU 700 year climate simulation, and since at the time of publication it was claimed temperatures had only been stalled 10 years, we should just "wait a bit" because global warming is sure to reoccur, since pauses as long as 15 years are rare. Flash forward to 2/13/10, Phil Jones of CRU now states that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. The Hadley CRU simulation mentions no pauses of global warming exceeding 15 years in their simulation. Their models dismiss variability in solar activity and fluctuations in ocean oscillations, which can have multi-decadal periodicities of 30, 60, 120, etc. years.

Greenhouse Effect of CO2 Already Saturated: New Miskolczi Video

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a former NASA Physicist, published his peer-reviewed provocative saturated greenhouse theory 3 years ago challenging the widespread belief in man-made global warming, and his work remains unchallenged with no peer-reviewed rebuttal nor critique published. Dr. Miskolczi concludes,

"Earth-type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and unlimited reservoirs of water vapor, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, ‘saturated’) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions."

See prior Hockey Schtick posts with the original paper and explanations and interviews. A YouTube video is now available explaining the theory in simplified form:  

Other analyses of the physics of the Greenhouse Effect also come to similar conclusions (see here  here  here  here  here(pdf) here and empirical confirmation from satellite data). Gavin, Trenberth, Hansen et al where are you? [Cue crickets]

Related

The Sunday Funnies

Global Warming Consensus Reaches 130% with -50% Against

It's official: the consensus for Man-made Climate Change is now over-unanimous. The results from a recent poll conducted by the Mann-Hansen Group strongly support Mann-made Climate Change theories by 130% for to -50% against. This unprecedented result was obtained by counting a 'no' vote as a negative response which is added by subtracting. This also generates a positive feedback raising the pro vote beyond the 100% level.

Explained a Mann-Hansen expert, "Yes, the numbers don't exactly add up to 100, a discrepancy we attribute to the carbon offset, as the poll takers, being life forms, have quite a bit of carbon in them. In any case, the whole thing has man's carbon fingerprints all over it. Our computer models can rectify this using the customary Flexible Up and Down Guess Estimate, or FUDGE factor. This might seem unnatural, but Man-made Climate Change is unnatural, so the consensus may as well be, too. You have to fight fire with fire."

He continued, "The Precautionary Principle would seem to imply we act with caution, but as the consensus has passed the 100% tipping point, it no longer applies. This invokes the Post-Cautionary Principle meaning radical, precipitous action is now required. Which is what we've been saying all along, only now we've produced some overwhelming numbers to back us up."

Other Headlines from the Future:

• Hell freezes over; global-warming deniers exploit incident to mislead public
• Chicago Olympics threatened by advancing glaciers; police rounds up local global-warming deniers as a preventive measure

Also recommended: Al Gore Is Right: Listen To Us Experts — and Show Us the Money!

Climate Fluctuations 115,000 Years Ago: Short Warm Periods Typical for Transitions to Glacial Epochs?

ScienceDaily (Mar. 7, 2010) — At the end of the last interglacial epoch, around 115,000 years ago, there were significant climate fluctuations. In Central and Eastern Europe, the slow transition from the Eemian Interglacial to the Weichselian Glacial was marked by a growing instability in vegetation trends with possibly at least two warming events. This is the finding of German and Russian climate researchers who have evaluated geochemical and pollen analyses of lake sediments in Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Russia.

Writing in Quaternary International, scientists from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), the Saxon Academy of Sciences (SAW) in Leipzig and the Russian Academy of Sciences say that a short warming event at the very end of the last interglacial period marked the final transition to the ice age.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Highest in 6 Years

From the Copenhagen Centre for Ocean and Ice of the Danish Meteorological Institute

 

The antarctic sea ice anomaly is also above the 1979-2008 mean:

The Deniers: searchable preview at Amazon.com

and Financial Post articles from The Deniers series by the author:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part IWarming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIIILook to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XIIAllegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII

Dr. Bill Gray's Rebuttal of Boston Globe OpEd

Update: Flashback to Kerry Emanuel's false predictions in Time Magazine 1987

Good Technical Summary of Climategate

Prepared by Ross McKitrick PhD for the UK panel reviewing the Climategate emails:

 

Gavin Schmidt's "Good Science" Part 2

In part 2 of the last post, Good Science Gets Its Revenge, we examine additional emails from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4. Gavin Schmidt, taxpayer-supported blogger-in-chief at realclimate.org (see also The Truth About Realclimate.org), is quoted in the New York Times: “Climate scientists are paid to do climate science” and “Their job is not persuading the public”. In the following email, Gavin acknowledges that his job is "explaining the science to the general public/blogosphere", although he can't be explaining papers he has no refutation for such as in the title of the email "half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases" since he "can't be picking up after everybody".

 
(on a subsequent post I will show 3 emails from taxpayers to NASA/GISS in the FOIA files complaining about Gavin Schmidt being paid by taxpayers to essentially full-time blog on a privately-owned left-wing political advocacy site connected to Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Mann, etc. masquerading as the authoritative scientific source of all things climate. I will also have a post on the paper Gavin "doesn't want to pick up after" in Nature Geosciences stating that "half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases" )


As the following email shows, the paper Gavin wrote for submission to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society), which was rejected twice by BAMS upon the unanimous recommendation of three peer reviews, was actually written because Gavin needed a single peer reviewed reference on this topic for purposes of debunking Dr. Richard Lindzen on Gavin's blog:

Good Science Gets Its Revenge

In a New York Times article published today, taxpayer-supported nutter-blogger-in-chief at realclimate.org Gavin A. Schmidt is quoted as follows:

But some scientists said that responding to climate change skeptics was a fool’s errand.
“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
He said that the recent flurry of hostility to climate science had been driven as much by the cold winter as by any real or perceived scientific sins.“There have always been people accusing us of being fraudulent criminals, of the I.P.C.C. being corrupt,” Dr. Schmidt said. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
The answer is simple, he said.
“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

I fully agree with Gavin's last quote, that good science is the best revenge. Let's take a look at this in action, from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 is a series of emails detailing a trouncing by 3 scathing reviews of a paper written by Gavin Schmidt et al submitted not once but twice to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) and ultimately rejected outright. Followed by this are emails regarding a blog posting at climatedepot.com in 2009 stating "prominent scientist appalled by Gavin Schmidt's lack of knowledge". Looks like Gavin better just stick to persuading the public at his blog rather than being paid to do climate science.

The Truth About Realclimate.org

Another "awful" email from Phil Jones?

From the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 (not in the Climategate files), what appears to be another "awful" email from Phil Jones to James Hansen & Co. at GISS:

In point #4 Phil Jones says his "biggest worry is China. CMA [The Chinese Meteorological Agency] don't (sic) measure at airports, and they keep moving suburban locations a few more miles out as the cities expand...hope they will...send me their adjusted data (for site moves, but not urban influences). They are doing some reasonable work, but not seeing the big picture..."

As I understand this email, Phil Joneses biggest worry is that China doesn't have upwardly biased temperature records like many other parts of the world because they don't measure at airports and keep moving thermometers further out as the cities expand. What a terrible practice that is! And why isn't Phil interested in the urban influences data? It must be that the Chinese are not seeing the big picture...  And what big picture would that be that Phil didn't want to put in writing in this email?

Someone please tell me I misunderstood and why. And please also explain #1 listed under "other issues" on why NCDC will be increasing global temps from about 2000 onwards. Hansen likes this and says in his reply at top that the NOAA SSTs [sea surface temperatures] seemed just a hair cool to him as well.

Paper: "no change" climate "model" is 7 times better than IPCC model

A 2009 paper published in the International Journal of Forecasting states, in erudite terminology, that a "benchmark model" of climate, the "benchmark model" simply being that the climate will not change, resulted in climate change forecasting errors from 1851-1975 seven times less than the IPCC model which attributes climate change primarily to CO2 levels:

In other words, the IPCC model of climate change forecasting is, as Einstein might quip, "not even wrong". The paper goes on to say, scientist tongue apparently planted firmly in cheek, that "decision makers who had assumed that temperatures would not change [instead of what the IPCC model predicts] would have had no reason for regret".

UK public confidence in climate science declines to new post-ice age low of 31%

UK Headline 2/2010:

Followed a couple weeks later by this UK Headline:

Any questions?     
(yes, I know weather is not climate and #1 is primarily SSTs & #2 NH land temps. Source of 31% UK public confidence level is REUTERS)  (The UK Met Office originally predicted only a 20 per cent chance of a colder than average winter but was embarrassed yet again when official figures revealed it was the coldest for more than 30 years)
Related: Coldest Winter In 30 Years  & Coldest February Since 1979  
Coldest Winter in 3 Decades over South Florida
 

Another Bogus Graph created for IPCC AR4

This impressive-looking-at-first-glance graph created by the IPCC for AR4, Chapter 5, page 36 (the graph is not taken from any peer-reviewed literature) purports to show a "remarkable...pattern of change in the ocean", claiming a spatial relationship between different levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, temperature, and sea levels at different latitudes:

The legend, however, notes that the data comes from 4 different sources each from vastly different time periods, the carbon concentration is only the anthropogenic fraction (3-4%) of the total carbon emissions which has a different spatial distribution than the anthropogenic only, and there is an inverse correlation between sea level rise above 60 degrees N 1993-2003 and temperature decrease in the same region 1955-2003 (note anthropogenic climate changes are supposed to be most pronounced at the poles). In sum, the graph proves nothing and on close inspection just weakens the IPCC "message". How does junk science like this get through the "extensive review process of hundreds of international experts"? Probably the same way as the IPCC paleoclimate reconstructions.

Back to the Future

Circa 1989:

From the archives of the New York Times

Circa 2008:

But...but why are they saying otherwise now? Oh, they had to "fix" the old data in the mean time.

many thanks to Wattsupwiththat.com, climaterealists.com, & nyt.com for sources. Another version of the fixed US temperature data.

Slingo Says Land Temps are 10x more accurate than Satellite data

Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office UK in answering a question as to why the land based temperature data record has shown higher temperature anomaly than the two satellite records explains that the reason is that satellite data is "an order of magnitude" (10 times) less accurate than the land based thermometer data [you know those thermometers in little latex-painted boxes at the end of aircraft runways and in cities]. She dismisses the urban heat effect by saying "we've looked at it" and says the issues with the Mann Hockey Stick have been "resolved" without mentioning that it has been discredited. Truly a piece of work as are the other apologists.

 

Phil Jones holding all of the scientific evidence of AGW

Don't miss the first part of the hearing discussing the Mann Hockey Stick as "fraudulent" and Mike's Nature Trick as a deliberate deception intended to hide the decline. Professor Phil Jones trembles and hands shake throughout his testimony as he evades answering questions. Good summary of the hearing at Bishop Hill. 

Update: Dr. Roy Spencer, NASA/UAH Satellite expert states Slingo is incorrect about the accuracy of satellite data v. land based thermometers.


BBC article & small video segment        Memoranda to the UK Parliamentary Committee