Leading Climate Sensitivity Scientist ‘Admits Mathematical Errors in The AGW Theory’
Mr. Kyoji Kimoto has asked me to post the following essay, which tells us leading climate sensitivity scientist Dr. Robert Cess admits the IPCC assumptions are erroneous. (Note: Because WordPress didn’t handle some of the scientific notation, I had to cut and paste parts of the text as images).
===================================
Dr. Robert D. Cess admits mathematical errors in the AGW theory of the IPCC
by Kyoji Kimoto
Soden & Held [1] shows climate sensitivity is 3°K for 2xCO2 from the 14 GCM studies for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) as follows:
Climate sensitivity = no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks
= 1.2°K x 2.5 = 3°K
Here, feedbacks are water vapor, ice albedo, lapse rate and cloud feedback.
In the AGW theory of the IPCC, the central assumption is that the Planck response is 1.2°K. Cess [2, 3] obtained the Planck feedback parameter lambda0 of -3.3(W/m2)/K utilizing eqn (1), giving the Planck response of 1.2K with the radiative forcing RF of 4W/m2 for 2xCO2 as follows:
Coincidently, the Planck response of 1.2°K by eqn (3) is in very good agreement with the Planck response of 1.2 – 1.3°K obtained with one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies in the literature [4, 5, 6]. Therefore, the Cess method has been followed by many researchers, including the IPCC 1st Assessment Report (1990) and the 14 GCM studies for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007).
It is the sole theoretical basis of the central assumption of the IPCC that the Planck response is 1.2°K at present time [7, 8, 9], because the 1 DRCM study is fudged due to its strong dependence on lapse rate used according to Hansen’s idea expressed in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA.
On 23 August, 2016, Dr. Robert D. Cess gave me the following answer to my mail, admitting his mathematical errors in the derivation from eqn (1) to eqn (3). Dr. Cess was the leading climate scientist of Intercomparison Project of GCMs for the IPCC Assessment Reports. He wrote:
…I will try this one more time, and then I will give up. A lot has happened since M&S (1964) and M&W (1967). In modern usage, the no-feedback sensitivity refers to holding all climate parameters fixed except surface temperature. It addresses the question: What would the sensitivity be if there
Latest Momentous Discovery – The ‘Parched’ Earth Is Getting Wetter!
Latest Momentous Discovery – The “Parched” Earth Is Getting Wetter!
By Paul Homewood h/t James Grant Makin http://phys.org/news/2016-02-parched-earth-sea.html Back in February, this paper appeared: As glaciers melt due to climate change, the increasingly hot and parched Earth is absorbing some of that water inland, slowing sea level rise, NASA experts said Thursday. Satellite measurements over the past decade show for the first time that the Earth’s continents have soaked up and stored an extra 3.2 trillion tons of water in soils, lakes and underground aquifers, the experts said in a study in the journal Science. This has temporarily slowed the rate of sea level rise by about 20 percent, it said. “We always assumed that people’s increased reliance on groundwater for irrigation and consumption was resulting in a net transfer of water from the land to the ocean,” said lead author J.T. Reager of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “What we didn’t realize until now is that over the past decade, changes in the global water cycle more than offset the losses that occurred from groundwater pumping, causing the land to act like a sponge—at least temporarily.” The global water cycle involves the flow of moisture, from the evaporation over the oceans to the fall of precipitation, to runoff and rivers that lead back into the ocean. Just how much effect on sea level rise this kind of land storage would have has remained unknown until now because there are no land-based instruments that can measure such changes planet-wide. An artist’s depiction of the NASA GRACE satellites and the Earth’s gravity field. Credit: NASA/JPL The latest data came from a pair of NASA satellites launched in 2002—known as the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). Researchers learned that the “water gains over land were spread globally, but taken together they equal the volume of Lake Huron, the world’s seventh largest lake,” said a NASA statement. Researchers said the findings will help scientists better calculate sea level changes in the years ahead. Map of trends in water storage over the continents as measured by the GRACE satellites. Credit: J.T. Reager, NASA /JPL “These results will lead to a refinement of global sea level budgets, such as those presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which acknowledge the importance of climate-driven changes in hydrology, but have been unable to include any reliable estimate of their contribution to sea level …
Alarmists Freak Out That Global Warming Will Expose Top Secret Nuclear Facility, It Won’t
Global warming will expose a secret Cold War-era nuclear base in the coming decades — that’s according to The Guardian newspaper on a recent climate study.
The tone of the article is that Camp Century, a defunct U.S. military base in northwest Greenland, is on the verge of being exposed by global warming. The camp and the supposedly radioactive waste it conceals were part of an “underground cold war network that had been thought buried forever, until climate change made that highly unlikely,” according to The Guardian.
Camp Century is “likely to be uncovered by rising temperatures within decades,” The Guardian urgently reported. The study’s lead author added to The Guardian article’s sense of urgency.
“They thought it would never be exposed,” William Colgan, a glacier scientist at York University, told The Guardian.
Will this finally convince skeptics!? NEWSWEEK: ‘GLOBAL WARMING COULD WIPE OUT BREAKFAST CEREALS BY 2070’
Global warming could rapidly reduce the cultivation of wheat and rice, threatening the production of breakfast cereals along with half of all the calories consumed by humans.
A study looking ahead to 2070 found that climate change was occurring 5,000 times faster than certain grasses can adapt, New Scientist reported.
Wheat, rice, maize, rye, barley and sorghum are all edible grasses that yield nutritious grains. In many parts of the world and throughout history, wheat or rice famines have led to widespread starvation.
The research examined how 236 grass species could adapt to the local environments they depended on for survival.
Experts predict evolutionary adaptation seems particularly unlikely for domesticated species and the result will be devastating for some human populations.…
Don’t Worry, the Earth Is Not Locked into Ten Degrees of Warming
The internet is abuzz with a new climate study that seemed to deliver a bombshell conclusion: the amount of carbon humans have put into the atmosphere may have already committed the planet 3 to 7 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming.
Three to 7 degrees Celsius is a big amount of warming—an apocalyptically big amount. The Paris climate accord, adopted less than one year ago by nearly 200 nations, resolved to slash global carbon emissions so that we don’t exceed 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming overall. If we’ve already blown that target, not only is humanity’s landmark climate agreement depressingly obsolete, coral reefs, low-lying island nations, and many of our planet’s coastal cities are doomed.
Here’s the good news: prominent experts are calling this a load of malarkey. “This is simply wrong,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Gizmodo. “The actual committed warming is only 0.5 to perhaps 1 [degree Celsius]—and nothing in the study changes that.”…
Nature paper pushes wild exaggeration of 7-13C “climate sensitivity”! Even Gavin Schmidt calls them out.
Nature paper pushes wild exaggeration of 7-13C “climate sensitivity”! Even Gavin Schmidt calls them out.
Lordy. Lordy. How did Snyder 2016 get past rigorous peer review and into a supposed “top” journal like Nature? Carolyn Snyder did a 2 million year temperature reconstruction then assumed that all the warming in the whole record was caused by CO2, she then carried that correlation right through to reach the absurd conclusion that climate sensitivity is not 2 – 4C, but 7 to 13 freaking degrees. (Did she study climate science by watching Al Gore?) Normally we’d expect a climate expert to know that orbital mechanics drive most of the changes. Don’t look now, but Gavin Schmidt has done the right thing and pointed out a very silly conclusion that Nature and all their reviewers missed. This obvious mistake was also missed by The ABC, The Conversation, Andrew Glikson etc etc. (If Nature had even asked bloggers to review it…). The Daily Mail (UK) published a version by Associated Press, and they at least asked Michael Mann and Jeremy Shakun, who respectively said they “remain skeptical”, and it “seems too high”. Though they buried those warnings and still went with the apocalyptic headline: Earth is warmer that it has been in 120,000 years – and is ‘locked in’ […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
— gReader Pro…
Arctic Sea Ice Growth is ‘Greatest on Record’ in September – Ice ‘Expanding at a Phenomenal Rate’
Via: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/record-arctic-sea-ice-growth-in-september/
Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth In September – SEPTEMBER 25, 2016
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate.
Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
Even more remarkably, ice growth since the start of the month is actually the greatest on record, since daily figures started to be kept in 1987.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
Experts call this phenomenon the final collapse of sea ice!
FAILED TIPPING POINTS: HISTORY KEEPS PROVING PROPHETS OF ECO-APOCALYPSE WRONG
The ability to make accurate predictions is a hallmark of good science. Predictions by environmental doom-mongers have proven to be wrong time and time again. No wonder most people no longer believe them.
If we do not reverse global warming by the year 2000, “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels”, warned Noel Brown, a director of the United Nations Environment Programme, in 1989.
It is common cause that sea levels have been rising ever since the start of the Holocene at the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,700 years ago. Throughout the 20th century, tide gauge data has shown this rise to be fairly steady at about 1.5mm/year, and largely unaffected by changes in temperature or atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Since 1993, satellite altimetry has determined a fairly constant sea level rise of just over 3mm/year. However, it is far from clear whether this represents an acceleration or an artefact of how sea level is measured with respect to surrounding land.
A 2016 paper by Australian scientists Albert Parker and Cliff Ollier suggests that the altimetry record suffers from errors larger than its trends, and “returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary ‘corrections’”.
“We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible,” they write, “and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios. Ocean and coastal management should acknowledge all these facts. As the relative rates of rises are stable worldwide, coastal protection should be introduced only where the rate of rise of sea levels as determined from historical data show a tangible short term threat. As the first signs the sea levels will rise catastrophically within a few years are nowhere to be seen, people should start really thinking about the warnings not to demolish everything for a case nobody knows will indeed happen.”
Clearly, history proved Noel Brown wrong.
In 2002, George Monbiot urged the rich to give up meat, fish and dairy, writing: “Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or …
Analysis’:Global climate models and the laws of physics’
Global climate models and the laws of physics
http://judithcurry.com/2016/09/13/global-climate-models-and-the-laws-of-physics
by Dan Hughes We frequently see the simple statement, “The Laws of Physics”, invoked as the canonical summary of the status of the theoretical basis of GCMs. We also see statements like, “The GCM models are based on the fundamental laws of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.” Or, “GCM computer models are based on physics.” I recently ran across this summary: How many hours have been spent verifying the Planck Law? The spectra of atmospheric gases? The laws of thermodynamics? Fluid mechanics? They make up climate models just as the equations of aerodynamics make up the airplane models. And here’s another version: Climate models are only flawed only if the basic principles of physics are, but they can be improved. Many components of the climate system could be better quantified and therefore allow for greater parameterisation in the models to make the models more accurate. Additionally increasing the resolution of models to allow them to model processes at a finer scale, again increasing the accuracy of the results. However, advances in computing technologies would be needed to perform all the necessary calculations. However, although the accuracy of predictions could be improved, the underlying processes of the models are accurate. These statements present no actual information. The only possible information content is implicit, and that implicit information is at best a massive mis-characterization of GCMs, and at worst disingenuous (dishonest, insincere, deceitful, misleading, devious). There are so many self-contradictions in the last quoted paragraph, both within a given sentence and between sentences, that it’s hard to know where to begin. The first sentence is especially self-contradictory (assuming there are degree of self-contradictions). There are a very large number of procedures and processes applied to the model equations between the continuous equations and the coded solution methods in GCMs. It is critical that the actual coding be shown to be exactly what was intended as guided by theoretical analyses of the discrete approximations and numerical solution methods. The articles from the public press that contain such statements sometimes allude to other aspects of the complete picture such as the parameterizations that are necessarily a part of the models. But generally such public statements always present an overly simplistic picture relative to the actual characterizations and status of climate-change modeling. It appears to me that the climate-change community is in a unique position …