The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

AGW-based climate models are inaccurate.

50-Year U.S. Summer Temperature Trends: ALL 36 Climate Models Are Too Warm
October 20th, 2022
I’ll get right to the results, which are pretty straightforward.

As seen in the accompanying plot, 50-year (1973-2022) summer (June/July/August) temperature trends for the contiguous 48 U.S. states from 36 CMIP-6 climate model experiments average nearly twice the warming rate as observed by the NOAA climate division dataset.

The 36 models are those catalogued at the KNMI Climate Explorer website, using Tas (surface air temperature), one member per model, for the ssp245 radiative forcing scenario. (The website says there are 40 models, but I found that four of the models have double entries). The surface temperature observations come from NOAA/NCEI.

The official NOAA observations produce a 50-year summer temperature trend of +0.26 C/decade for the U.S., while the model trends range from +0.28 to +0.71 C/decade.

As a check on the observations, I took the 18 UTC daily measurements from 497 ASOS and AWOS stations in the Global Hourly Integrated Surface Database (mostly independent from the official homogenized NOAA data) and computed similar trends for each station separately. I then took the median of all reported trends from within each of the 48 states, and did a 48-state area-weighted temperature trend from those 48 median values, after which I also got +0.26 C/decade. (Note that this could be an overestimate if increasing urban heat island effects have spuriously influenced trends over the last 50 years, and I have not made any adjustment for that).

The importance of this finding should be obvious: Given that U.S. energy policy depends upon the predictions from these models, their tendency to produce too much warming (and likely also warming-associated climate change) should be factored into energy policy planning. I doubt that it is, given the climate change exaggerations routinely promoted by environment groups, anti-oil advocates, the media, politicians, and most government agencies.

 

Well, you know, if your model doesn't predict future warming, you won't be getting another dime from your benefactors. And if you don't create more hype in your research, no one will want to give you money again. Simple economics.

Have you noticed that those who produced those models that are so egregiously wrong are still getting grants?? And isn't that ironic...

 

The work continues.

Sulphuric acid aerosols in low oxygen environments
Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, H., 2022, In: Journal of Aerosol Science. 162, 7 p., 105956.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

 

The science advances.

Effects of Forbush decreases on clouds determined from PATMOS-x
Matsumoto, H., Svensmark, H. & Enghoff, M. B., 2022, In: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 230, 13 p., 105845.

 

Those observational data look like they need some weighting, homogenization, averaging, reconciliation, reprocessing, adjustment and correction.

 

Attacking the AGW paradigm at its root.

New Paradigm-Shifting Study Finds Annual CO2 Flux Is Driven By Temperature-Dependent Sea Ice Flux
By Kenneth Richard on 7. November 2022

Share this...
Annual carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) change rates lag behind changes in sea ice extent by 7 months and 5 months, respectively. This robust correlation is consistent with the conclusion that CO2 (and CH4) changes are responsive to temperature, not the other way around.
It is commonly believed that the annual “squiggle” of the Mauna Loa CO2 cycle variations are driven by hemispheric seasonal contrasts in terrestrial photosynthesis.

But scientists (Hambler and Henderson, 2022) instead find it is variation high latitude temperatures affecting sea ice extent changes that dominate as drivers of the CO2 (and methane) annual fluxes, not photosynthesis.

They affirm temperature (T) changes lead CO2 change rates by about 7-10 months, suggesting the causality direction is T→CO2, and not CO2→T.

Temperature also drives sea ice peak melt vs. accumulation rates. This cause-effect directionality can also be clearly seen in analyses of sea ice flux vs. annual CO2 rate changes.

“The phase relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide has been examined to help elucidate the possible direction of causality and the lags we find between timeseries are consistent with carbon dioxide being the response variable.”
“Carbon dioxide is very strongly correlated with sea ice dynamics, with the carbon dioxide rate at Mauna Loa lagging sea ice extent rate by 7 months. Methane is very strongly correlated with sea ice dynamics, with the global (and Mauna Loa) methane rate lagging sea ice extent rate by 5 months. Sea ice melt rate peaks in very tight synchrony with temperature in each Hemisphere.”


Image Source: Hambler and Henderson, 2022

 

Another brick in the wall . . .

Outside the Black Box: Back to Basics
Guest Blogger
For the anthropogenic part it’s pretty clear: with a growth to a maximum CO2-level of 560 ppm, even under a realistic ‘business as usual’ scenario [11], there is certainly no…

 

AGW takes more hits.

Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2
By Kenneth Richard on 10. November 2022

Share this...
An increase in effective radiative forcing from human activity is now said to be mostly driven by a decline in aerosol pollution, superseding the effects of CO2 emissions.
The majority of an alleged acceleration in anthropogenic global warming in the 21st century “is driven by changes in the the aerosol [effective radiative forcing] trend, due to aerosol emissions reductions” (Jenkins et al., 2022).



Image Source: Jenkins et al., 2022
This is supported by other studies reporting a direct radiative forcing increase of +1.59 W/m² over the US from 1996-2019 and +2.0 W/m² impact over Europe from 1980-2018 (Augustine and Hodges, 2021, Kejna et al., 2021) due to these countries reducing their sulphate aerosol emissions through policy initiatives.





Image Source: Augustine and Hodges and Kejna et al., 2021
Considering it reportedly takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to exert a total surface forcing impact of just 0.2 W/m², reducing our aerosol emissions has a much larger impact on Earth’s radiation budget than reducing our CO2 emissions.

So if we want to more efficiently (and with far less cost) reduce global warming, apparently what we need to do is increase our aerosol pollution rates.

The science is now settled. Right?

 

Another failure of the AGW paradigm.

Outside the Black Box: Back to Basics
Guest Blogger
This cannot be a coincidence and clearly shows that the CERES data do not support the outcomes of GCM calculations: . . . .

Summary. Analyzing the trend in the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites, delivers a “natural” climate sensitivity of 0.3 K/W/m2. That is at, or very close to the inverse of the Planck feedback parameter as could be expected. Starting from the basic energy balance, it is shown that the high climate sensitivities as used by the IPCC are just a result from the invalid assumption that global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses only. Climate feedbacks to explain those high values are no more than necessary artifacts needed to support this mis-conception. At present conditions it is calculated from a simple analytical expression that the IPCC climate sensitivity is 3.2x too high. That implies that the global warming as measured since 1980, is for about 2/3rd the result of an increase in incoming solar power and can only for 1/3rd be attributed to an increase in GHG’s, at max. This analysis is supported by radiation data from NASA’s CERES-project (2000-2020). . . .

 

Bingo. What this means in effect is that the huge positive water vapor feedbacks hypothesized in all the GCMs that predict a large greenhouse effect for CO2 -- which were never physically plausible anyway -- have been rendered empirically untenable. If the net of all feedbacks is even positive, it has to be very modest. But if it is negative, it could still be quite substantial, and even the "natural" sensitivity of 0.3K/W/m^2 could be too high.

 

The AGW alarmists lose another round.

Transient Climate Response from observations 1979-2022
Posted on December 7, 2022 by curryja | 71 comments


by Frank Bosse

A very interesting blog post by Gavin Schmidt provides input on “constraining“ the observed TCR ( Transient Climate Response) in the time window 1979- 2022 using the latest climate models.

Continue reading →

 

New Study: Shortwave Climate Forcing Increased From 2001-2018, Explaining The Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 15. December 2022

Share this...
Yet another observational study determines changes in Earth’s reflectiveness, or planetary albedo, may be primarily responsible for 21st century climate forcing.
Earth’s radiation budget at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is predominantly controlled by internal changes in cloud cover. A declining albedo – linked to declining cloud cover – corresponds to an increase in the shortwave radiation absorbed by the Earth and thus a positive climate forcing.

More specifically, a change in Earth’s albedo of just -0.01 corresponds to an increase of +3.4 W/m² in absorbed solar radiation (Wielicki et al., 2005). Thus, even tiny variations in the planetary albedo are sufficient to trigger glaciations and deglaciations (Budyko, 1969).

A new study indicates the planetary albedo declined at a rate of -0.002 per decade from 2001-2018, equivalent to approximately +0.7 W/m² per decade of shortwave climate forcing.

When we consider it allegedly takes 10 years and 22 ppm of CO2 increases to produce a total surface forcing of +0.2 W/m² per decade, it is obvious that the increase in absorbed solar radiation, modulated by changes in cloud albedo, has been the dominant forcing factor driving warming in recent decades.



Image Source: Lv et al., 2022

 

What If Real-World Physics Do Not Support The Claim Top-Of-Atmosphere CO2 Forcing Exists?
By Kenneth Richard on 22. December 2022

Share this...
The longstanding claim is CO2 (greenhouse gas) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing drives climate change. But it is too cold at the TOA for CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) to exist.


Image Sources: Schneider et al., 2020, NASA, UCAR, CGA
TOA greenhouse gas forcing is a fundamental tenet of the CO2-drives-climate-change belief system. And yet the “global-mean longwave radiative forcing of CO2 at TOA” (Schneider et al., 2020) may not even exist.

It is easily recognized that water vapor (greenhouse gas) forcing cannot occur above a certain temperature threshold because water freezes out the farther away from the surface’s warmth H2O goes.

According to NASA, the TOA is recognized as approximately 100 km above the surface. The temperature near that atmospheric height is about -90°C.

CO2 is in its solid (dry ice) form at -78°C and below.

Therefore, TOA CO2 radiative forcing cannot exist if CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas at the TOA.

 

Climate Sensitivity from 1970-2021 Warming Estimates
December 19th, 2022
". . . Using the most recent estimates of effective radiative forcing from Annex III in the latest IPCC report (AR6), the observational data suggest lower climate sensitivities (ECS) than promoted by the IPCC with a central estimate of +2.09 deg C. for the global average. This is at the bottom end of the latest IPCC (AR6) likely range of 2.0 to 4.5 deg. C.

I believe this is still likely an upper bound for ECS, for the following reasons.

1. Borehole temperatures suggest there has been a long-term warming trend, at least up into the early 20th Century. Ignoring this (whatever its cause) will lead to inflated estimates of ECS.
2. I still believe that some portion of the land temperature datasets has been contaminated by long-term increases in Urban Heat Island effects, which are indistinguishable from climatic warming in homogenization schemes."

 

ECS is turning out to be higher than predicted.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/Pipeline.arXiv.13December2022.pdf
---
One implication is that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is high, at least ~4°C for 2×CO2.
---

Please proceed with insults directed at Dr. Hansen now.

 

As the fast warming continues, this thread keeps aging poorly. Especially funny are the posts predicting cooling.

We know how this ends. The strong La Nina eventually ends, an El Nino happens, and global temperature records are shattered.

The inevitable denier response? "ALL THE DATA IS FAKED!". What else can they do?

It's good to be on the rational side. We go where the data leads, so we never have to embarrass ourselves by contradicting the data.

 

Sweet Jeebus, no. And nobody reading the website caught that physics faceplant?

According to that theory, CO2 snow should be falling in Antartica when the temperature gets below -78C. Yet it doesn't. If dry ice is stored at at -78C in the open atmosphere ... it will all sublimate into CO2 gas. Only in a sealed container will it remain dry ice.

That's because the -78C freezing point is for CO2 at 1 atmosphere pressure. C02 in earth's atmosphere is at .0004 atmosphere, so the freezing point is substantially lower, lower than the coldest temperature on earth.

C02 does freeze out on Mars because Mars is colder, and Mars has a higher partial pressure of CO2.

 

~ Like much of the covid-19 fiasco, most of the "science " regarding Co2 pending disaster is political .

 

Please take up your objection with the various authors cited in #188.

 

No warming trend for over 7 years now and the per decade warming rate has dropped at UAH data to + .13C/decade.



LINK

Now you finally admit it is El-Nino's that drives short warming spells just as I have told you dozens of times in the past.

 

To further show the obvious that it is the SUN/Ocean dynamo that drives the weather and climate on the planet.

Bob Tisdale

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

In a recent interview, Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, from NCAR said the upcoming 2014/15 El Niño might shift global surface temperatures upwards by 0.2 to 0.3 deg C to further the series of upward steps. Curiously, Trenberth is continuing to suggest that the warming we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s resulted from naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled El Niño events and that we might get to experience yet another of those El Niño-caused warming steps as a result of the 2014/15 El Niño. So let’s take a look at what he’s suggesting and what the future MAY POSSIBLY hold in store…if Trenberth’s dreams come true.

Peter Sinclair of ClimateCrocks recently produced two YouTube interviews with NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth about the upcoming 2014/15 El Niño. See Part 1 here. At about the 9-minute mark in Part 2 (here), Trenberth speculates, sounding gleeful, that the upcoming El Niño may lead to another in the series of upward steps in global surface temperature:

"One of the real prospects to look out for is whether we go back into a different phase of this Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And one of the potential prospects we can watch out for is whether the next whole decade will be distinctly warmer…uh, uh…and so, in terms of the global mean temperature, instead of having a gradual trend going up, maybe the way to think of it is we have a series of steps, like a staircase. And, and, it’s possible, that we’re approaching one of those steps. And we will go up, you know, two- or three-tenths of a degree Celsius to a next level, and maybe we won’t come down again. I think that’s one of the things we could possibly look out for."

LINK

=======

Trenberth himself says it is El-Nino's that generates the step warming events........

 

Bob Tisdale

SkepticalScience Needs to Update their Escalator

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Bob Tisdale

Excerpt:

The SkepticalScience animation The Escalator has been around for a couple of years, and it has appeared in dozens of their posts and in blog posts by other carbon dioxide-obsessed alarmists. Their intent with The Escalator animation was to show that the instrument temperature record includes many short-term absences of global warming, while, in their minds, manmade greenhouse gases caused the long-term trend of global warming. With Kevin Trenberth now saying strong El Niño events caused global warming to occur in steps, SkepticalScience needs to revise their escalator animation. The steps are not only how skeptics view global warming…one of the leading ENSO and global warming researchers is now presenting global warming in El Niño-caused big jumps, and he also has written in at least two peer-reviewed papers that El Niños are fueled by sunlight.

So here’s my suggested replacement for SkepticalScience’s The Escalator. For lack of a better title, we’ll call it…


THE TRENBERTH GLOBAL WARMING STAIRCASE

The aminated chart in the LINK worth seeing.

 

I'm glad that deniers have finally grasped out that the sun and the oceans affect climate. Pretty soon, they'll notice just how much the oceans have heated up.

And temperatures went up, so your point seems to be that he was right.

No. he didn't say that. He basically said what I said, that the ENSO cycles are on top of the overall warming trend.

Remember, you're not talking to your fellow cultists, so gaslighting doesn't work on us. We can actually read, and understand what we read.

So, the science.

La Nina phases have level temps, while El Nino phases have rising temps.

The Tisdale theory says the El Nino phase causes permanent warming. Given that those phases have been going on since, like, forever, and given the La Nina phases don't cause cooling, then why hasn't the world roasted?

 

Are these not your own words?

They're your words, so I'm addressing _you_. If you want to admit that you were parroting something you don't understand, we can let it rest there. But since you're pretending to understand the science, I'm going to keep critiquing your really bad science.

Phase diagrams. They're an undergrad-level thing. Sometimes they're even a high-school level thing.



At one atmosphere, we can see that the solid-vapor transition for C02 is -78C.

But that's the partial pressure. CO2's partial pressure in earth's atmosphere is .0004 atmosphere. Thus, the solid-vapor transition border in earth's atmosphere is ... off the chart, below and too the left. The first comment in your linked article says it's -140C. (At least someone reading the site wasn't ignorant.)

This isn't a debate. The lowest surface temperature on earth was -89C. According to your theory, such temperatures should cause CO2 to precipitate out of the atmosphere as snow and frost. Since CO2 does _not_ fall as snow at such temperatures, your theory, the one you adopted as your own, is wrong.

The astonishing thing here is how a supposed "expert" from the denier side didn't understand something as basic as phase diagrams.

 

They are not, so please take your objection up with the authors.