The Crisis Report - 52
Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm”. Part 2
SO,
Last month, Zeke Hausfather wrote this for the NYT.
I Study Climate Change. The Data Is Telling Us Something New.
Where he stated.
“While natural weather patterns, including a growing El Niño event, are playing an important role, the record global temperatures we have experienced this year could not have occurred without the approximately 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming to date from human sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.”
“While many experts have been cautious about acknowledging it, there is increasing evidence that global warming has accelerated over the past 15 years rather than continued at a gradual, steady pace. That acceleration means that the effects of climate change we are already seeing — extreme heat waves, wildfires, rainfall and sea level rise — will only grow more severe in the coming years.”
“I don’t make this claim lightly. Among my colleagues in climate science, there are sharp divisions on this question, and some aren’t convinced it’s happening.”
This is IMPORTANT.
Zeke Hausfather, isn’t just “some guy”.
Zeke Hausfather is the climate research lead at Stripe and a research scientist at Berkeley Earth. He is a MAJOR voice among the “Climate Moderates” like Michael Mann, Hannah Ritchie, and Christiana Figueres. The “Doomism is WORSE than Denial”, crowd of “mainstream” Climate Science.
What you are seeing, is the “surrender” of the MODERATE faction in Climate Science. What you are seeing, is analogous to Lee’s surrender at Appomattox.
While “holdouts”, like Michael Mann, will keep denying reality. The DEBATE is OVER. The Moderates were WRONG.
THIS IS NOT, “GOOD NEWS”.
Because it means. ALL of our models and forecasts are WRONG. They “grossly underestimate” both Climate Sensitivity and Latitudinal Gradient Response. The two, MOST IMPORTANT, parts of the Climate System.
Which means that WARMING, will be a LOT, “faster than expected”.
— — — — — — — — — —
CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
If you aren’t sure what this means, here’s what Wikipedia says.
Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much Earth’s surface will cool or warm after a specified factor causes a change in its climate system, such as how much it will warm for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.
When Climate Scientists talk about “Climate Sensitivity” what they mean is, “how much will the Earth WARM up if the atmospheric CO2 level increases from 280ppm to 560ppm?”
We have spent close to a HUNDRED YEARS trying to answer that question.
2020
An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
- American Geophysical Union
“Constraining the Earth’s Climate Sensitivity (ECS) has remained a holy grail in climate science ever since U.S. meteorologist Jules Charney suggested a possible range of 1.5C to 4.5C in his 1979 report.
“His estimate was largely based on the world’s first two global climate models, which gave different estimates of 2C and 4C when they performed a simple experiment where atmospheric CO2 levels were doubled”.
“Since then, despite more than 40 years of research, much improved understanding of atmospheric processes, as well as many more detailed observations, this range has stubbornly persisted”.
‘Now, bringing together evidence from observed warming, Earth’s distant past and climate models, as well as advances in our scientific understanding of the climate. After four years of labor and detailed discussions by an international team of scientists, we are able to quantify better than ever before how the world’s surface temperature responds to increasing CO2 levels”.
“Our findings suggest that the range of ECS is “likely” (66%) to be between +2.6C and +4.1C.”
MANY OF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THESE “GUESSTIMATES” MEAN SOMETHING.
They are, after all, the “scientific consensus”.
So why, after 50 YEARS of research and “modeling” are our BEST results, basically the same as those from 1975?
A QUICK HISTORY OF OUR ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY ‘CLIMATE SENSITIVITY’.
1931
HULBURT
American physicist E.O Hulburt ran calculations to determine the effect of doubling carbon dioxide, and, included the added burden of water vapor.
In an age “before computers”, he came up with a figure of around +4°C of warming.
However, at that time, it was generally thought that the Earth’s climate system maintained itself in some “natural” kind of homeostatic balance. The “scientific consensus” was that the Earth’s oceans could “easily” absorb the paltry amounts of CO2 that “mere MAN” might produce.
The “scientific consensus”, of that moment, was that the atmospheric CO2 levels weren’t worth worrying about and certainly were not affecting the planetary temperature. SCIENCE disagreed with Hulburt and pretty much ignored him.
Hulburt’s +4C number is seen as “ALARMIST”
1938
CALLENDAR
English engineer Guy Callendar, revived the idea that the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were actually WARMING the planet. He carefully compiled evidence of a warming temperature trend in the early twentieth century from collections of temperature records.
Callendar found that the atmospheric CO2 level had increased by some 10% since the 1850’s. Which he suggested may have caused the warming. Then he went on to add, that over the coming centuries there could be a climate shift to a permanently warmer state.
Callendar’s own calculations, gave a +2°C temperature rise for a carbon dioxide doubling.
In many ways Callendar’s work is a “MODERATE” position.
He rejected the “DENIER” position that the vastness of the oceans would manage to absorb most of the extra CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere. But, he argued that radiation of trapped HEAT from this CO2 increase was more important than convection, contradicting Hulburt.
He also argued that warming should cause more cloudiness, which would make the Earth “more reflective”. Reducing warming below the levels suggested by calculations of “static” systems.
Callendar’s +2C number is seen as “MODERATE”.
1975
MANABE and WETHERALD
Manabe and Wetherald publish a seminal paper in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, entitled “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model”.
They use a 3D Global Climate Model (GCM) to investigate for the first time the effects of doubling atmospheric CO2 levels.
The results reveal, among other things, disproportionate warming at the poles (POLAR AMPLIFICATION) and a “significantly” increased intensity of the hydrologic cycle.
It shows a value for climate sensitivity of +2.9C. Which is still, broadly, the mid-range consensus among climate scientists, 50 years later.
1977
The Frank Press Memo to President Carter.
Release of Fossil CO2 and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change.
“Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow to 1.5 to 2. 0 times that level within 60 years.
Because of the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from +0.5C up to +5.0C.
To place this in perspective, a change of +5C would exceed in 60 years the normal temperature swing between an ice age and a warm period which takes place over tens of thousands of years.
The potential effect on the environment of a climatic fluctuation of such rapidity could be catastrophic and calls for an impact assessment of unprecedented importance and difficulty. A rapid climatic change may result in large scale crop failures at a time when an increased world population taxes agriculture to the limits of productivity.
The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective.
Natural dissipation of CO2 would not occur for a millennium after fossil fuel combustion was markedly reduced.
As you know this is not a new issue. What is new is the growing weight of scientific support which raises the CO2 climate impact from speculation to a serious hypothesis worthy of a response that is neither complacent nor panicky .
The authoritative National Academy of Sciences has just alerted us that it will issue a public statement along these lines in a few weeks. Stating that.
The present state of knowledge does not justify emergency action to limit the consumption of fossil fuels in the near term.
However, I believe that we must now take the potential CO2 hazard into account in developing our long-term energy stragegy. Beyond conservation, we must be prepared to exploit nuclear energy more fully.
As insurance against over-reliance on a nuclear energy economy, we should emphasize targeted basic research which could lead to breakthroughs for solar electric, biomass conversion or other renewable energy sources.
I am already working with OMB and other Federal agencies on a national climate research program which would lead to a better assessment of the CO2 hazard. If you agree, I will work with OMB, ERDA, FEA, and NSF on alternate strategies for R&D, responsive to a possible CO2 hazard.”
— Frank Press
Here, using “Classified” Climate Studies, the “upper-end” of Climate Sensitivity is set at +5C.
BTW — It’s not “crazy” to think that people who have privileged access to information will generally not tell you everything they know. The Crisis Report — 20
1979
THE CHARNEY REPORT
The US National Research Council convenes a five-day “ad hoc” study group on carbon dioxide and climate at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Chaired by Jule Charney, the assembled panel of experts (which includes a retired representative from the Mobil oil company) sets about establishing a “consensus” position on the “implications of increasing carbon dioxide”.
They compare two models — one of Manabe’s and one by James Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The panel notes how heat from the atmosphere could be temporarily absorbed by the oceans and they also settle on a range for climate sensitivity of +2.0C up to +4.5C.
In 1979 the “battle lines” were drawn. The MODERATES forecast +2.0C of warming. The ALARMISTS forecast between +4.0C and +5.0C of warming.
1980
In Which the THEORIES of the MODERATES become the “Climate Paradigm” or “Scientific Consensus”.
Reagan becomes president. Republicans dominate government for the next 12 years.
Which “model” do you think they favored?
The one that said we had to “wean off” fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY.
OR
The one that said it was “safe-ish” to keep burning fossil fuels for another century.
OF COURSE the Republicans favored the Climate Model of the Moderates.
The Crisis Report — 46 (Part One)
What went wrong. A Climate Paradigm Postmortem or “How the Fossil Fuel Industry, the Republicans, and the Climate Science Moderates of the 80’s stole the rest of your life”
1988
HANSEN
Hansen “warns” the Senate that “Greenhouse Gas Warming” had been detected.
Ummm…. Not exactly. Everyone “in power” kinda knew that by 1988.
What Hansen is warning the Senate about.
Is the danger of assuming that the models of the Moderates were CORRECT in terms of their Climate Sensitivity estimates and their estimates about the SPEED that warming would occur.
Hansen was WARNING that warming could happen “faster than expected” and that it could be a LOT WORSE than the THEORIES of the Moderates indicated.
To Republicans it sounds like “sour grapes” from a “Doomer Looser”. Hansen is pushed to the “sidelines”.
1998
RIND
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943–5971, MARCH 27, 1998 by David Rind NASA\GISS.
The first sentence of this paper asks.
“How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change?”
Then goes on to tell us that;
“This question is second in importance only to the question of overall climate sensitivity”
“Our current inability to answer it affects everything from understanding past climate variations, and paleoclimate proxies, to projections of regional effects of future greenhouse warming [Rind, 1995].”
Then the paper goes on to “cast out” paleoclimate research. In Rind’s own words.
“Can we use the results from the paleoclimate analysis to suggest what is likely with increasing CO2?”
“The precise relevance of past to future climates has been extensively discussed [e.g., Webb and Wigley,1985; Mitchell, 1990; Crowley, 1990; Rind, 1993]; difficulties include the rapid nature of the projected future climate change, the different current climate background (land ice, continental configuration, ocean circulation), and questions concerning appropriate paleoclimate forcing.
Given these ambiguities, any conclusion as to the effects of increased CO2 on the future latitudinal temperature gradient based on paleoclimates must be highly speculative.
This is an EXTREMELY important statement and it’s easy to miss the significance of it. This is a statement by NASA/GISS to the Climate Modeling “community”, that the use of paleoclimate data in assessing “the effects of increased CO2 on future” warming, would be regarded as “highly speculative”.
Rind is basically saying that paleoclimate and fossil evidence should not be considered in the Climate Models and even as part of Climate Science itself.
Rind then goes on to address the “nagging” issue of POLAR AMPLIFICATION.
Doubled CO2 equilibrium simulations from different atmosphere-mixed layer ocean models show different degrees of high-latitude climate warming amplification.
In the GFDL model (Alarmist), the temperature response at high latitudes is 3–4 times that at the equator.
While in the GISS model (Moderate), it is only close to a factor of 2 [Rind, 1987a].
The regional response in these different models depends on these differences in equator-to-pole gradients, which affects the hydrologic cycle, in general, and storm energetics [Rind, 1987a, 1988].
That was very influential.
NASA/GISS is regarded as the “Gold Standard” in Climate Science. It became an accepted FACT that this would be the “expected” amount of “Arctic Amplification”.
High-Latitude Climate Warming Amplification should ONLY be “close to a factor of 2”.
NASA/GISS was WRONG.
The Earth’s Climate System — A Short Users Guide. Part 02. Arctic Amplification — Understanding why the Polar Zones are warming 4X faster than the rest of the planet.
2020
An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
- American Geophysical Union
“Our findings suggest that the range of ECS is “likely” (66%) to be between +2.6C and +4.1C.”
40 YEARS AFTER THE CHARNEY REPORT AND, NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE MODELS.
BUT, the planet has warmed up. A LOT.
PERHAPS IT’S TIME TO RETHINK OUR MODELS.
2021
GOODE
Earth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine
P. R. Goode, E. Pallé, A. Shoumko, S. Shoumko, P. Montañes-Rodriguez, S. E. Koonin
First published: 29 August 2021 https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094888
Abstract:
Earth observation satellites are constantly measuring the Earth’s albedo using a suite of sensors, and the reflectivity of the planet is measured through earthshine, the light from the Earth that reflects off the Moon. This paper analyzes earthshine measurements between 1998 and 2017 to see if the Earth’s albedo is rising or declining in response to climate change.
Here’s their conclusion.
“We have reported a two-decade long data set of the Earth’s nearly globally averaged albedo as derived from earthshine observations. Stringent data quality standards were applied to generate monthly and annual means.
These vary significantly on monthly, annual, and decadal scales with the net being a gradual decline over the two decades, which accelerated in the most recent years (much of the decrease in reflectance occurred during the last three years of the two-decade period the team studied).
Remarkably, the inter-annual earthshine anomalies agree well with those from CERES satellite observations, despite their differences in global coverage, underlying assumptions to derive the albedo, and the very different sensitivities to retroflected and wider-angle reflected light.”
The two-decade decrease in earthshine-derived albedo corresponds to an increase in radiative forcing of about 0.5 W/m2, which is climatologically significant (Miller et al., 2014).
For comparison, total anthropogenic forcing increased by about 0.6 W/m2 over the same period.
The CERES data show an even stronger trend of decreasing global albedo over the most recent years, which has been associated to changes in the PDO, SSTs and low cloud formation changes.
It is unclear whether these changes arise from the climate’s internal variability or are part of the feedback to external forcings.”
— — — — —
Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming.
July 19, 2021–118 (30) e2026290118
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
Abstract:
Global warming drives changes in Earth’s cloud cover, which, in turn, may amplify or dampen climate change.
This “cloud feedback” is the single most important cause of uncertainty in Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) — the equilibrium global warming following a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Using data from Earth observations (Goode’s Project Earthshine and NASA CERES). Then “feeding” this OBSERVED DATA into climate model simulations, we here develop a statistical learning analysis of how clouds respond to changes in the environment.
We show that global cloud feedback is dominated by the sensitivity of clouds to surface temperature and tropospheric stability.
Considering changes in just these two factors, we are able to constrain global cloud feedback as +0.43W/m2 to +0.35W/m2 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below +2C.
We thus anticipate that our approach will enable tighter constraints on climate change projections, including its manifold socioeconomic and ecological impacts.
This study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that it is 97.5 percent certain that changes in clouds brought about by climate change will amplify warming.
2022
The “Evidence” Continues to come in.
The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979
Communications Earth & Environment volume 3,
Article number: 168 (Aug 2022)
Abstract:
In recent decades, the warming in the Arctic has been much faster than in the rest of the world, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.
Numerous studies report (based on models) that the Arctic is warming either twice, more than twice, or even three times as fast as the globe on average.
Here we show, by using several observational datasets (REAL collected DATA) which cover the Arctic region.
That during the last 43 years the Arctic has been warming nearly four times faster than the globe, which is a higher ratio than generally reported in literature.
We compared the observed Arctic amplification ratio with the ratio simulated by state-of-the-art climate models, and found that the observed four-fold warming ratio over 1979–2021 is an extremely rare occasion in the climate model simulations.
The observed and simulated amplification ratios are more consistent with each other if calculated over a longer period; however the comparison is obscured by observational uncertainties before 1979.
Our results indicate that the recent four-fold Arctic warming ratio is either an extremely unlikely event, or the climate models systematically tend to underestimate the amplification.
Continued record-breaking ocean temperatures seen again in 2022
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Another Year of Record Heat for the Oceans.
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.
Results were recently published where a new record of 0–2000m ocean heat content (OHC) was set and recorded in 2022, with an addition of approximately ~10 Zetta joules (ZJ) of heat into the ocean than 2021. A Zetta joule is a joule (unit to measure “work” or “heat”) with 21 zeros behind it.
One joule is equal to the work it takes to make a watt of power for a second.
A Zetta Joule is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules.
WE ADDED 10 of those worth of HEAT ENERGY to the world’s oceans IN ONE YEAR.
The study wanted to determine if the RATE of WARMING had accelerated over time and, “if so”, to quantify the RATE of CHANGE.
The study looked at warming trends over two near-equal time periods, from 1955 to 1986 and 1987 to 2019.
IT FOUND THAT THE WARMING DURING THE SECOND PERIOD WAS APPROXIMATELY 450% GREATER THAN THE FIRST.
— — — — —
Cenozoic evolution of deep ocean temperature from clumped isotope thermometry.
Science/30 Jun 2022/Vol 377, Issue 6601 pp. 86–90/DOI: 10.1126/science.abk0604
Their finding suggests that a given level of CO2 might produce more warming than prior work indicated, and it hints that the ocean circulated differently during that warm, ice-free climate.”
I encourage you to read the paper’s abstract and then the article. It does a better job than usual in explaining what the paper means and the science of it. The thing I want to focus on is this:
The new method indicates that between 57 and 52 million years ago, the North Atlantic abyss samples show the global temperature was about 20°C warmer than our 1850 baseline.
That’s a big difference from the oxygen isotope data, which yielded temperatures of 12–14°C. “That’s a whole lot warmer,” said Meckler.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
2023
Let’s “Rethink” some of our ASSUMPTIONS.
For example, going from 280ppm to 560ppm isn’t exactly “doubling” the level of atmospheric CO2. It’s more complicated than that.
The AMOUNT of CO2 in the atmosphere at our “starting CO2 baseline” of 280ppm produced a Global Mean Temperature of around 14C or 57F. About a degree cooler than the GMT between 1950 and 1980 (which was 15C or 59F).
The INCREASE in CO2 levels that produced the 1850 baseline was only +100ppm. That’s the difference between NYC under a MILE of ICE and the NYC of 1850, just a change of 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thanks to the ice core records, we now KNOW, that for the last 800,000 years CO2 levels have NEVER gone below 180ppm. 180ppm is “rock bottom” for our Climate System.
Thanks to the hard work of paleoclimate researchers, we now KNOW that CO2 levels for the last 500 million years have NEVER gone below 180ppm. It might have happened earlier than that, during one of the “snowball earth” episodes BEFORE LIFE EVOLVED, but not since then.
Increasing that level by just +100ppm, produced +6C to +7C of warming. EVERY TIME for the last 880,000 years.
We didn’t know that until the 1990's.
In the last 500my’s, atmospheric CO2 levels have NEVER gone below 180ppm or above 2,000ppm.
We didn’t know that until the 2000's.
SO.
We KNOW, that a +100ppm increase in CO2, from 180ppm to 280ppm, produced +6C of “Global Warming”. EVERY SINGLE TIME for the last 800K years.
The MODERATE “guesstimate”, is that adding +280ppm to that total will result in just +2C to +3C of Global Warming.
Reality — — +100ppm (180ppm to 280ppm) equaled +6C of warming.
Moderate Estimate — — +280ppm (280ppm to 560ppm, TRIPLE the last increase) is +2.6C of warming in the 2020 analysis.
If you knew NOTHING about Climate Science, would that seem like a “reasonable” estimate based on the information above?
Would you still BELIEVE it, if you knew that paleoclimate research had determined the last time atmospheric CO2 levels were at 420ppm (10mya) the GMT was +4C Warmer, sea levels were 76 feet higher, Greenland had no ice cap, and aspen forests were growing in Western Antarctica?
The only question we should be asking NOW, is how FAST will we get to +4C?
— — — — — — — — — — -
The MODERATES thought that warming would take centuries and be “gradual”.
The current RATE of WARMING is now about +0.36C per DECADE at a MINIMUM.
Global Warming is Accelerating. Why? Will We Fly Blind?
Per James Hansen, Sept 2023
“Suspicion that global warming was accelerating was created by the warming rate between the 1997–98 and 2015–16 El Ninos.
The rate of warming between those super El Ninos was 0.24°C/decade, exceeding the 1970–2010 rate of 0.18°C/decade.”
Everyone got that?
Warming Rate from 1970–2000 was +0.18C/decade.
Warming Rate from 1998–2016 was +0.24C/decade.
“So far, the present El Nino, only 8 years after the 2015–16 El Nino, suggests substantial further increase in the rate of global warming.
The proximate cause of the global warming is Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI): there is more energy coming in (absorbed sunlight) than energy going out (heat radiated to space).
EEI increased greatly in the past decade (Fig. 4).
The imbalance so far in the 2020s (1.36 W/m2) is almost double the rate (0.71 W/m2) during the calibration period (mid-2005 through mid-2015).”
The AMOUNT of ENERGY going into the Climate System has DOUBLED since 2015.
“In which satellite data4 for EEI (with great precision in temporal change) are put on an absolute scale via decadal-mean in situ (Argo float) ocean heat storage data.”
*note:
Hansen’s mention of the Argo float system is significant. A favorite tactic of the ‘Moderates’ over the years has been to “low-ball” estimates of the amount of HEAT being forced into the oceans.
The Argo float system of over 2,000 autonomous robotic floats that record temperatures down to 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) found 40% more HEAT in the oceans than the models of the Moderates predicted. Hansen’s numbers aren’t based on “theories” or “guesstimates”, they are based on “hard data”.
— — — — — — — — — —
Let’s see.
If the RATE of WARMING between 1998–2015 was +0.24C/decade and then the AMOUNT of ENERGY going into the Climate System DOUBLED.
What’s the “real” RATE of WARMING between 2016 and NOW?
ANSWER — WE DON’T KNOW.
But, at these rates, getting to +4C isn’t going to take long.
IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE OUR CLIMATE MODELS, DON/T MATCH REALITY.
+2C at 560ppm was WRONG.
+4C at 560ppm is still to LOW.
+5.7C at 560ppm is the ONLY model that agrees with the paleoclimate record.
So, why does anyone still BELIEVE in them?
— — — — — — — —
The Moderates got Climate Sensitivity, the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the Climate System, WRONG. So now, warming will be “faster than expected” and it/s going to get “hotter than expected”.
By a LOT.
rc 11072023
Previous Parts:
Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our Climate Paradigm. In order to understand “Why” things are happening “FASTER than Expected”.
Thank you for the write up.