Corrected RCP Scenario Removal Fractions

February 6th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Well, as I suspected (and warned everyone) in my blog post yesterday, a portion of my calculations were in error regarding how much CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in the global carbon cycle models used for the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) scenarios. A few comments there said it was hard to believe such a discrepancy existed, and I said so myself.

The error occurred by using the wrong baseline number for the “excess” CO2 (atmospheric CO2 content above 295 ppm) that I divided by in the RCP scenarios.

Here is the corrected Fig. 1 from yesterday’s post. We see that during the overlap between Mauna Loa CO2 observations (through 2019) and the RCP scenarios (starting in 2000), the RCP scenarios do approximately match the observations for the fraction of atmospheric CO2 above 295 ppm.

Fig. 1. (corrected) Computed average yearly rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 above a baseline value of 295 ppm from (1) historical emissions estimates compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data (red), (2) the RCP scenarios used by the IPCC CMIP5 climate models Lower right), and (3) in a simple time-dependent CO2 budget model forced with historical emissions before, and EIA-based assumed emissions after, 2018 (blue). Note the time intervals change from 5 to 10 years in 2010.

But now, the RCP scenarios have a reduced rate of removal in the coming decades during which that same factor-of-4 discrepancy with the Mauna Loa observation period gradually develops. More on that in a minute.

First, I should point out that the CO2 sink (removal rate) in terms of ppm/yr in three of the four RCP scenarios does indeed increase in absolute terms from (for example ) the 2000-2005 period to the 2040-2050 period: from 1.46 ppm/year during 2000-2005 to 2.68 ppm/yr (RCP4.5), 3.07 ppm/yr (RCP6.0), and 3.56 ppm/yr (RCP8.5). RCP2.6 is difficult to compare to because it involves not only a reduction of emissions, but actual negative CO2 emissions in the future from enhanced CO2 uptake programs. So, the RCP curves in Fig.1 should not be used to infer a reduced rate of CO2 uptake; it is only a reduced uptake relative to the atmospheric CO2 “overburden” relative to more pre-Industrial levels of CO2.

How Realistic are the Future RCP CO2 Removal Fractions?

I have been emphasizing that the Mauna Loa data are extremely closely matched by a simple model (blue line in Fig. 1) that assumes CO2 is removed from the atmosphere at a constant rate of 2.3%/yr of the atmospheric excess over a baseline value of 295 ppm.

OK, now actually look at that figure I just linked to, because the fit is amazingly good. I’ll wait….

Now, if I reduce the model specified CO2 removal rate value from 2.3 to 2.0%/yr, I cannot match the Mauna Loa data. Yet the RCP scenarios insist that value will decrease markedly in the coming decades.

Who is correct? Will nature continue to remove 2.0-2.3%/yr of the CO2 excess above 295 ppm, or will that removal rate drop precipitously? If it stays fairly constant, then the future RCP scenarios are overestimating future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and as a result climate models are predicting too much future warming.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this situation can not be easily resolved. Since that removal fraction is MY metric (which seems physically reasonable to me), but is not how the carbon cycle models are built, it can be claimed that my model is too simple, and does not contain the physics necessary to address how CO2 sinks change in the future.

Which is true. All I can say is that there is no evidence from the past 60 years (1959-2019) of Mauna Loa data that the removal fraction is changing…yet.

There is no way for me to win that argument.


164 Responses to “Corrected RCP Scenario Removal Fractions”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Sisyphus says:

    So what exactly is the reasoning behind the RCP reduced uptake curves? Therein resides the mechanism which needs cogent address…

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Good question. I have no idea.

      • wert says:

        I guess there has been speculation on reducing ocean uptake due to surface warming, and disregard on global greening. This is something in which claims are possible and fears can be promoted as theory requiring action.

      • Leitwolf says:

        Excuse me, but I did answer it already in my post a few days ago.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/will-humanity-ever-reach-2xco2-possibly-not/#comment-427625

        The RCP uptake model is extremely simple and in all scenarios they have a seconday reservoir which is exactly twice (!!) the size of the atmosphere. You just need to look at the accumulated amount of CO2 sinks to find this out. Lets go through it.

        First of all the RCP model as I have it, starts at the year 1765 with a 278ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then again, what is correct conversion factor for ppm to Gt of CO2? 7.8 or 8.1? I’ll stick to the latter for the sake or argument. The figures are not perfectly precise, but good enough to show what goes on. So..

        RCP3: By 2034 the atmosphere holds 405ppm, which at a cut-off of 278ppm for “natural levels” means an additional 1030Gt of CO2. Also by 2034 CO2 sinks have taken up an accumulated 2050 Gt. of CO2. At this point in their model, CO2 sinks turn negative, as the secondary reservoir holds about 2times as much CO2 as the atmosphere and thus is equally “full”.

        RCP4.5: Same story here. Since they expanded their models up to the year 2500(!?) things turn relatively simple. By the year 2500 atmospheric CO2 is at a stagnant 543ppm, which translates into 2138Gt of anthropogenic CO2. CO2 sinks at this point have taken up an accumulated 4097Gt of CO2, sightly less than double that amount. So the secondary reservoir is not quite as full as the primary one, and thus CO2 sinks still take up some 2.47Gt. p.a.

        So even though I can not name the exact parameters, that part with 2x sized secondary reservoir is quite obvious I guess.

    • barry says:

      Yes, I’ve read many times in various places that because warmer water is less soluble to gases, the ocean uptake will diminish in the future. This contention appears in the IPCC First Assessment Report. There is more detail in the 3rd Assessment Report.

      https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/

      Chapter 3 – THE CARBON CYCLE AND ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

      See section 3.2.3.3 – Future changes in ocean CO2 uptake – for this and other physical processes that could impact CO2 sink rate.

    • Nate says:

      As noted in the last article, the the co2 pressure in the ocean mixed layer Pml is closely tracking the Patm. Thus NEW annual emissions are almost immediately shared with ML, and to some extent the land biosphere.

      Thus the fraction removed may have little to do with Patm – P(1895) that is in the model. Rather it is proportional to annual emissions. This explains the fraction removed ~ constant.

      It just so happens Patm- P(1895) history is similar in shape to history of emissions. So the model works for now.

      That wont be true in future when emissions flatten, but Patm-P(1895) continues to grow.

      In the longer term the Pml-Pdeep must equilibrate.

    • TimTheToolMan says:

      So what exactly is the reasoning behind the RCP reduced uptake curves?

      Because they only consider the chemistry and not the life behind it.

  2. Perfecto says:

    Euan Mearns found a similar CO2 sequestration rate of 2.5% / year. He includes some discussion of the Bern model that seems to be the basis for IPCC work.

    http://euanmearns.com/the-half-life-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-part-1/

    Understanding “Carbon Feedbacks in the Climate System” is considered a Grand Challenge of climate research.

    https://www.wcrp-climate.org/grand-challenges/grand-challenges-overview

    Regarding land and ocean carbon sinks, the question of “How do they currently operate?” seems to be open.

  3. Elliott Bignell says:

    Carbon reuptake is a process which human activity can presumably modulate to some degree. Any physical model, equally presumably, attempts to factor in the response of vegetation and soils to climate change. The two cannot, however, be separated, so the models scenarios must contain implicit or explicit assumptions about policy. Policy is an open question and also an opportunity. Once again, it appears we can only hope to rely on an aggregate of many scenarios for projection.

    Even leaving aside the complexity of soil and vegetation systems, it is not surprising if this is an area open to considerable uncertainty.

  4. Steve McGee says:

    The budgets appear uncertain.

    Some of the uptake could be going into increased plant and phytoplankton growth, both predicted to increase with increased CO2.

    Some of the uptake could be going into the oceans, particularly the Southern Ocean which is also thought to be taking up heat.

    Ocean uptake of CO2 increases exponentially with wind speed:
    https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-25643-1_2/MediaObjects/978-3-642-25643-1_2_Fig10_HTML.png

    That would be consistent with CO2 induced cooling over Antarctica.

    And, this paper indicates an increase in oceanic speeds:
    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/global-ocean-circulation-is-speeding-up-67066

  5. A by-line to the above note that global ocean circulation is speeding up, and connected to growing sequestration of CO2 into the ocean, would probably result in increased upper layer bioproductivity and also increased ocean floor deposition of organic matter.

  6. Perfecto says:

    The main reference for the Bern carbon model seems to be Joos et al. 1996 “An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake” (free online). The paper lists many decay constants and amplitudes in the appendix, but the only model validation appears to be comparison to other models and some cursory discussion of C14 concentration.

    Is there a validation paper for the consensus carbon model? What are the parameter uncertainties?

    • I don’t know. Yes, it looks like they have an approximation to the carbon cycle models to run fast. I wish I had more time to look into this issue, I’m sure the papers those models are based upon describe why the CO2 uptakes changes on long time scales. It would have to be related to some quasi-“saturation” effect that causes a major CO2 sink to be less efficient over time.

  7. Greg Goodman says:

    Here is a quick comparison I did years ago between ICOADS SST and *rate of change” of CO2 ( MLO ).

    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ddtco2_sst_15mlanc.png

    The similarity between ICOADS and d/dt(CO2) is striking. Also note the underlying rise in both. This may reflect Henry’s law relating to partial pressures.

    Basic physics would refute the idea that you can not expect a constant flat rate %age like 2.3%. This will diminish both as SST rises ( Henry ) and as pCO2 in oceans increase. Both of these are known facts. There may be some more realistic middle ground between Dr Spencer’s fixed 2.3% and RCP4.5

  8. barry says:

    IPCC references on physical processes that could affect CO2 uptake rate.

    Third Assessment Report

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/

    Chapter 3 THE CARBON CYCLE AND ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

    Section 3.2.3.3 Future changes in ocean CO2 uptake

    Fourth Assessment Report

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/

    Chapter 7 – COUPLINGS BETWEEN CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY

    Section 7.3.4 – Ocean Carbon Cycle Processes and Feedbacks to Climate

    Fifth Assessment Report

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

    Chapter 6 – CARBON AND OTHER BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES

    Section 6.3.2.4 – Carbon Dioxide Airborne Fraction [observations]

    Section 6.4 – Projections of Future Carbon and Other
    Biogeochemical Cycles

  9. Tim S says:

    I have a simple question. Are they using Henry’s Law? Good data should be available.

  10. Midas says:

    Watch these 5 videos for an analysis of the uptake of CO2.
    (1) https://tinyurl.com/Carbon-Cycle-Overview
    (2) https://tinyurl.com/Anthrop-Carbon-Keeling-Crve
    (3) https://tinyurl.com/Ralph-Keeling-Missing-Carbon
    (4) https://tinyurl.com/Conversation-w-Ralph-Keeling
    (5) https://tinyurl.com/Carbon-Uptake-Land-Ocean

    The first is only the an overview of the carbon cycle. The rest are relevant to this discussion.

  11. Entropic man says:

    Tim S

    There was some discussion of this a while back at Realclimate. Henry’s Law was part of it.

    A number of papers suggested that the ocean carbon sink would take up less CO2 over time.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/is-the-ocean-carbon-sink-sinking/

    • barry says:

      That appears to be a consensus view to date, whereas the future land uptake has a less uniform view.

    • Entropic man says:

      Just spent a few minutes playing with Henry’s Law.

      Around 14C equilibrium CO2 concentration in surface waters increases in proportion to atmospheric CO2.

      An increase of 1K reduces dissolved CO2 by 5%.

      What would that do to conditions in 2050, when CO2 is expected to double from 1880 and temperature to increase by 3C?

      CO2 in surface waters would increase by 100% due to increased partial pressure and decrease by 15% due to increased temperature.

      That is an increase of 85%, an effective decrease in the % of CO2 stored in the ocean sink.

  12. bdgwx says:

    Another interesting angle is the duration of the pulse. We already know that the IPCC advocates for longer adjustment times for larger pulse sizes. But what about pulse duration? The reason I ask is because the ~100 ppm pulse from the glacial eras to the interglacial eras took thousands of years yet the depletion back toward the glacial level takes upwards of 100,000 years to play out sometimes. Additionally the PETM pulse was an order of magnitude less in terms of duration and yet it hung around for thousands of years.

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      This is total garbage. A 100 ppm pulse that took thousands of years is not a pulse. Also, we know nothing about e time or even if the proxy data has any real validity. Instead of advocating why doesn’t the IPCC do some real science? You don’t even realize the continuity equation is a mass balance equation.

      • bdgwx says:

        A pulse is an increase in mass/ppm in the atmosphere. That increase can be quick or slow. It’s still an increase and still a pulse. If your challenge is with the terminology then please provide another word that is less offensive to you and I’ll use that instead.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          A pulse implies an instantaneous increase. We know this is not an instantaneous increase. That is very old proxy data you are trying to use.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Also, you’re only use this odd argument because there’s no physical or mathematical basis for your arguments using contemporary data.

      • bdgwx says:

        Is “release” acceptable to you? I’m good with it if you are.

  13. Old Chemist says:

    CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 (carbonic acid ) + CO3(2-) (carbonate) = 2 HCO3(-) (bicarbonate).

    The oceans are basically carbonate buffered solutions. The amount of carbonate available to the oceans in the Earth’s crust is orders of magnitude greater than the CO2 in the oceans which in turn is some 60 x greater than CO2 in the atmosphere. There are multiple dynamic equilibria going on. CO2 dissolves in water and is released from water into the air (Henry’s Law). Dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid which is a weak acid and ionized only to a small extent. Calcium carbonate the predominant form of carbonate is soluble to a very low level (13 mg/L) but is very available. Rates of chemical reactions (greater than 1st order) are dependent on concentration and temperature. If the ocean warms the equilibrium between CO2 in the air and in the water shifts towards the air, but the amount of soluble carbonate, the rate of its solubilizarion, and the rate of bicarbonate formation will increase. The oceans can easily sequester the amount of fossil fuel produced CO2 as bicarbonate. The pH of bicarbonate is around 8.2 which is why “ocean acidification” is a red herring

    • Nate says:

      The measured reduction in Ph up to now is 0.1, expected to be 0.2 with co2 doubling.
      Is that wrong?

      In the distance past, in hothouse Earth with 5 – 10 x preindustrial co2, the acidity wreaked havoc on ocean ecosystem.

    • Bob says:

      OC
      Let me guess – you’re one of those nuts who believes “acidification” requires the pH to drop below 7.

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      You’re right on OC. Not only are the ocean surface and the atmosphere in equilibrium but this doesn’t tell us the direction of flow. However, if the direction of flow is from deep ocean to surface ocean to atmosphere you’d expect pH to increase. Going around measuring ocean pH’s doesn’t tell you anything unless you know the pH of the ocean at every point coupled with all the direction of flows and have a mass balance at the same time.

      • bdgwx says:

        Ocean pH is declining so we know the direction of flow is from the atmosphere into the hydrosphere. Therefore the hydrosphere is not the source of mass for the increase in the atmosphere.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          Don’t think so. The flow could be from deep ocean to surface ocean to atmoshere. pH doesn’t really indicate direction of flow.

          • bdgwx says:

            Is deep ocean carbon C13 depleted like fossil carbon?

            Can deep ocean processes source a carbon increase in the shallow ocean that quickly?

            Do we have evidence of similar carbon increases in the shallow ocean that were known to be sourced by the deep ocean in the paleoclimate record?

            Why were these deep ocean processes dormant over the holocene and then suddenly activated at the exact same time as the industrial revolution?

            Where did all of that fossil carbon (I’m talking mass here; not isotope tracers) go if not into the atmosphere and hydrosphere?

            Why is ocean pH declining?

            What kind of tests can you think of that can falsify the deep ocean -> shallow ocean -> atmosphere hypothesis?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            I don’t think we know a lot about deep ocean but the IPCC believes carbon flows from surface to deep ocean and from deep ocean to surface. That there is an equilibrium.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            What kind of tests? I’ll ask you the same question? But, if most of the increase from 1750 to 2020 is due to natural emission that would be a strong falsifier of ocean being a net sink, wouldn’t it?

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            Why is ocean pH declinging? I’m not sure that it is. But, it seems reasonable that it would be since atmosphere is in equilibrium with surface ocean and since atmospheric CO2 is increasing then surface ocean CO2 should be increasing.

          • bdgwx says:

            Tests of the deep ocean -> shallow ocean -> atmosphere hypothesis might include…

            Sample deep ocean carbon and see if it C13 depleted.

            Sample deep ocean carbon and see if it C14 depleted.

            Sample deep ocean pH and see if it increasing.

            Sample shallow ocean pH and see if it declining.

            See if the paleoclimate record has evidence of large atmospheric increases of equivalent magnitude and duration.

            See if the paleoclimate record has evidence of large shallow ocean increases of equivalent magnitude and duration.

            See if the deep ocean is warming at a rate that can explain the increase in mass of the shallow ocean.

            I don’t know what the expectation would be I am envisioning tests of oxygen levels in the deep ocean, shallow ocean, and atmosphere.

            I’m sure there are more tests that could be done. I just thought of these off the top of my head. It would be nice to have an expert weigh on this topic.

          • bdgwx says:

            A decline of pH at least in the shallow ocean would be an expectation of both atmosphere -> shallow ocean and deep ocean -> shallow process net flows. An observation of a increase of pH in this layer would falsify both hypothesis. The evidence of declining pH in the shallow ocean is pretty convincing though.

            So really all that test suggests is that the net flux of mass is positive in the shallow ocean. As long as more carbon is moving deep ocean -> shallow ocean than is carbon moving shallow ocean -> atmosphere then the complete flow deep ocean -> shallow ocean -> atmosphere is still consistent with shallow ocean pH observations.

            The problem is that pesky mass from the fossil/cement/landuse reservoirs. No matter what model you use to dispatch it that mass got incorporated into the carbon cycle in a geological blink of an eye. Trying to pretend like that mass doesn’t matter is problematic to say the least. It definitely throws a monkey wrench in alternative hypothesis.

  14. Bjarne Bisballe says:

    All Gts are gigatonnes of CO2
    We are informed that fossile 36 Gt is released to the atmosphere every year right now. That figure will increase with 0.6% each year. From Mauna Loa we know that approx 2 ppm stays in the atmosphere and as a ppm is 7.81 Gt, approx. 16 Gt stays in the atmosphere, so 20 Gt of the 36 Gt disappear with 8 Gt in the ocean and 12 Gt in the plants. As there is 3200 Gt in the atmosphere and it goes up with 16 Gt in a year, the level is 0,5% up each year. Thus the traffic the to ocean and the plants is also 0.5% up every year. 36/06 up and 20/05 down ends up with 16 up with 0,2%/year (weighted) and that can be calculated with a ‘compound interest’ table. It shows a very linear increase in the concentration (approx. 2ppm/yr) BUT: Plants grow from that CO2, and the earth is greening at at rate of 0.4%. (NASA?)
    With repect to this (again calculated with a ‘compound interst’ table), the increase is slowing down so much, that after 100 years and ahead the curve for the atmosphere concentration will slowly go near horisontal at a level of 280 – 290 ppm above the level of today and that will happen after approv 150 years.
    Conclusion: If we continue as today (36/0.6%), the max CO2 level will be approx 700 ppm in approx 150 years and it will not go higher. – sorry for my english

  15. ren says:

    Sorry.
    Subzero temperatures combined with a brisk north wind will send AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperatures plummeting to dangerously cold levels Thursday morning.
    https://wordpress.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/RFThursAM.jpeg?w=632

  16. Rcik Jafrate says:

    From a qualitative point of view…

    1. With such tiny CO2 concentrations, it’s not surprising that a simple model fits the data. (i.e. bottoms of an exponential curves can be approximated by a straight line)

    2. Old Chemist makes a compelling case for a very large reservoir which seems to be consistent with the simple model.

    3. If the growth rate, of plant and other CO2 gobblers, increases with CO2 concentration, it would seem to me that biological uptake would increase exponentially with CO2 concentration. At the very least one would expect a proportional increase in uptake.

    Thanks Dr. Spencer for hosting and stimulating interesting discussions such as this.

    • Scipio says:

      3. If the growth rate, of plant and other CO2 gobblers, increases with CO2 concentration, it would seem to me that biological uptake would increase exponentially with CO2 concentration.

      OK – is that true. Even if so, that hardly means CO2 concentration in the atmosphere isn’t also increasing exponentially.

      an exponential – an exponential = an exponential

  17. Entropic man says:

    “3. If the growth rate, of plant and other CO2 gobblers, increases with CO2 concentration, it would seem to me that biological uptake would increase exponentially with CO2 concentration. At the very least one would expect a proportional increase in uptake. ”

    You would also get a larger decay rate when the Northern Hemisphere growing season ends.

    To test this hypothesis look for an increase in the amplitude of the annual CO2 cycle.

    Unfortunately greening will take up more CO2 during the growing season, but most of it does not go into long term storage.

    • Sisyphus says:

      “Unfortunately greening will take up more CO2 during the growing season, but most of it does not go into long term storage.”

      Interesting. What might we define as “long term storage” in this context?

      • Entropic man says:

        Most of the growth each year is annual plants which decay at the end of the growing season and return their CO2 to the atmosphere.

        Perennials such as trees store some of the CO2 in their trunks for a few years or a few centuries, then decay.

        Peat bogs accumulate CO2 which may be stored for longer periods. The peat in Ireland is mostly 5000 years old.

        Siberian or Canadian permafrost is peat which may have been frozen since the Eemian interglacial 100,000 years ago.

  18. Sisyphus says:

    It would seem as though the core matter which undergirds most all of the current alarm message must therefore turn on two central issues:

    1) Substantive ocean warming is due to manmade CO2 emissions, entailing a marked reduction in the ocean’s capacity as a CO2 sink as time moves forward; and

    2) CO2 sequestration by the oceans has a reasonably short-term viability envelope in any case, due to both saturation of the sink and a proposed subsequent destruction of that biological system by a resultant pH lowering effect.

    Criteria 1 seems unlikely to be a prime factor when one surveys clean data sources. Natural warming appears to be the dominant phenomena moving forward.

    Criteria 2 is the greater menace if viable, objective evidence can provide tangible insight to the extent necessary to reliably predict catastrophic outcomes for this system from forecast atmospheric CO2 emission levels.

    If criteria 2 cannot be sustained without recourse to unlikely scenarios and abstract theory, then the whole matter collapses; and we remain in the world of opinion, conjecture, and hysteria…

    • bdgwx says:

      In regards to criteria 1 what “clean” data sources are you referring to?

      • Sisyphus says:

        Any source which follows good practice and does not convey any of an assortment of agendized tenets in its aims.

        The core matter of criteria 1 is made null when one attempts to correlate global CO2 emissions with the observed climate warming phenomena over time. Take out the agendas and the contaminated datasets, and any reasonable pattern disappears.

        In sum, criteria 1, as a bludgeoning instrument which targets historic/present/future manmade CO2 emissions, falls apart with any sensible examination of the unvarnished facts. Relevantly, the actual mild natural warming of the climate system falls well outside of the alarm message scope.

        As I like to say, choose your own data source(s) without bias, and make up your own mind.

      • Nate says:

        “Criteria 1 seems unlikely to be a prime factor when one surveys clean data sources. Natural warming appears to be the dominant phenomena moving forward”

        What natural sources explain the data? Please show us a natural-only model fitting the temp record.

        Which data sets are clean and how do you determine that?

        • Sisyphus says:

          Look to the long-term historical records which do not bear urban heat island effects, are properly sited, and show evidence of no substantial metrological aberrations throughout their record spans. Then, compare those data side-by-side over time with manmade global carbon emissions tracking from sources like the DOE.

          There’s your fishing pole, folks. You’re certainly smart enough to get the job done for yourselves…

        • Nate says:

          ‘Which data sets are clean?

          There are at a dozen or so compiled data sets. But you can’t point to one?

          ‘urban heat island effects’ Ber*keley Earth has looked carefully at this issue and finds that the data homogenization methods of the other main data sets are working well.

          Europe would be expected to have its urban heat island effects peak in the 19th or early 20th century, before Asia, and way before Africa.

          But you look here at temp records of different continents, Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe, they all show the same pattern. Low trend until ~ 1980, then a sharp upturn with a high trend thereafter.

          This is a global effect. https://tinyurl.com/stwup9l

          • Sisyphus says:

            “There are at a dozen or so compiled data sets. But you can’t point to one?”

            I most certainly can, but I deliberately won’t point to any one or more.

            The time has come for people to transition their energy from pointless argumentation and model promotion, and look to clean data for what nature has to say (and has been saying) in plain sight. It takes work to sort, but the data is there for anyone who is truly invested in this topic.

            So, survey those “dozen or so compiled data sets” for yourself, do the work, and make up your own mind.

          • bdgwx says:

            We have already surveyed known datasets. None support your assertion. So if you know of something no one else does then now is the time to lay your cards on the table.

    • Entropic man says:

      Regarding Criterion 1), the Henry’s Law calculation for a doubling of CO2 and consequent 3C warming projects that while atmospheric CO2 doubles, the CO2 content of the surface ocean would only increase by 85%.

      That is a 15% decrease in the effectiveness of the ocean sink as a buffer of CO2 increase.

      There is no natural warming. Measure all the natural forcings and their net combined effect is about 0.05C since 1880.Since we observe 1C warming in the same time, so 105% of the warming is artificial.

      Criterion 2) depends on whether you accept the consensus science. If you accept it, then concern is the proper response.
      If you reject the science then my concern is “opinion, conjecture, and hysteria”

  19. Dan Pangburn says:

    Why all this fuss about CO2. Simple calculations using data from Hitran show that the increase of water vapor has been about 10 times more effe.ctive than the increase of CO2 at ground level warming.
    Measured water vapor trend has been increasing faster than possible from feedback. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

    • Nate says:

      Dan,

      Simple calculations are alluring, but in this complex world often too simple to be reliable.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        I am apparently on some sort of restriction on this blog. I just posted something which would not post previously.

        What you have posted reinforces an idea that I have had for several years and that is, often, there is a fundamental difference between the reasoning process of engineers vs scientists. I do not think that is a bad thing at all but might help explain where each of us is coming from.

        Engineers (or at least in my case) are aware that anything we thought we knew or any experiment or data can be faulty. As a consequence, consciously or not, we place a confidence assessment on each factor. I remember in the distant past I was running pressure de.cay experiments. In solid rockets, if the pressure de.cay is fast enough, combustion stops and, at the time, we thought we needed to know that. I had false confidence in the instrumentation be.cause it had been used by others in the past but my results did not make sense. What I eventually figured out (I derived the pressure vs time for a venting cavity with burning propellant) was that instead of pressure vs time measurements I was g.etting the response capability of the instrumentation. Lesson learned.

        As to climate, I am aware that a lot of peer reviewed stuff has turned out to be faulty. Also, a lot of assump.tions and possibly mistakes went in to the GCMs. Everything that I am aware of indicates that the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is misunderstood/misapplied but perhaps it is merely the people I have heard from.

        What I have come up with is perhaps a different percep.tion of how the atmosphere works and what is important in it. Things that I have not seen extensively pursued by others include thermalization and the 1200 to 1 de.cline in WV mole.cules from ground to tropopause. Another factor is data from Hitran which, with a little calculation, shows that WV increase has been about 10 times more effe.ctive than CO2 increase at warming the planet at ground level. Another, which you assert is inadequately proven, is that measured WV is greater than possible from feedback. The calculations show that it is.

        My presump.tion is that any of these factors might be faulty, even if they have been accep.ted as proven. But put tog.ether in a rational scenario they are consistent with all available observations. They are internally consistent, i.e. the Hitran assessment and most probable WV measurements vs possible feedback comparison; the hash between wave number 200 & 600 in TOA graphs of flux vs wn are consistent with the 1200 to 1 de.cline in WV population; the notches at the top of flux vs wn graphs are explained by thermalization and above-mentioned emission to space by WV; the part of warming attributable to human activity is explained by the observed 1.47% per de.cade rise in WV due mostly to the increase in irrigation. Comparisons with small-island radiosonde measurements and and [sic] ground-based GPS water vapor data demonstrate rms errors of ~1.0 mm. is from RSS Documentation of WV measurements. I am not sure what that means but 1 mm is about 3.4%. The trend should be a lot better be.cause the uncertainty in individual measurements g.ets smoothed out so most of what is left is bias and instrument drift, neither of which is mentioned.

        The common observation that cloudless nights cool faster and farther where it is dry than where it is humid demonstrates that the misleadingly named greenhouse effe.ct exists and that it is caused by water vapor.

        Perhaps science could treat this entire scenario as a hypothesis and devise experiments to prove/falsify any of the factors. Water vapor and CO2 are both still increasing but there is a limit to how much WV the atmosphere can hold. If CO2 continues up and averag.e global temperature does not, they are wrong. If averag.e global temperature continues to go up but WV does not, I am wrong. About all I can do is wait and see.

        • Nate says:

          Dan,

          “Engineers (or at least in my case) are aware that anything we thought we knew or any experiment or data can be faulty.”

          Couple of things here.

          Scientists, particularly from my experimental side, are also aware of this. That is why we demand replication before accepting controversial results.

          Too many people come to this blog and to easily dismiss the value of scientists, their methods, findings, and expertise.

          In a subject as complex as this one it takes years to become expert enough to make an original contribution.

          It is hubris to assume that an amateur dabbling in such a field, is likely to find that the many experts have overlooked something simple.

          Much more likely is that the amateur dabbler is unaware of relevant facts and details that make his ‘simple’ idea wrong.

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “Much more likely is that the amateur dabbler is unaware of relevant facts and details that make his simple idea wrong.”

            Much more likely again is that the “amateur dabblers” who take this seriously have a much broader view of the science because scientists who do this for a living necessarily have a narrow view concentrating more directly on their funded interests.

          • Nate says:

            Oh Puleez, lets hear about all the recent scientific advances made by the ‘amateur dabblers’

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “lets hear about all the recent scientific advances made by the amateur dabblers”

            Its less about making “scientific advances” and more about having a holistic understanding of the multidisciplinary sciences that make up climate science.

          • Nate says:

            “having a holistic understanding”

            I assume you choose auto mechanics or doctors who are amateur dabblers with a ‘holistic understanding’ rather than training and expertise.

            Hows that working out?

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            I’d choose a doctor who had an interest in, and kept up with the entire field over one who was a GP who mostly deals with colds and flues, any day.

            Its true of all professions – the broader someone’s experience, the more valuable they are. Deep experience in one area is valuable too. But often not for long as the field moves on.

    • Scipio says:

      DanP, you must submit your work to peer review or you are wasting your time

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        I actually only got involved in this because of my own curiosity.
        There are a few problems with the ,,peer reviewed literature,, re climate change; especially in the name journals:
        1. Only about 10 % of submittals get published.
        2. It takes way too long from submittal to publish.
        3. If the paper appears to disagree with their existing beliefs it is rejected without review.
        4. Paper journals do not have hot links to references.
        5. I will not perish if I do not publish.
        I do not care what others think but appreciate constructive challenges.
        Mother Nature peer reviews my stuff.

        • Scipio says:

          so youre afraid to submit your work to a real journal because you’re afraid it will get rejected.

          yeah that’s how it goes — bad work is rejected.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Sci,
            A lot of published stuff turns out to be wrong so apparently sometimes bad work is also accep.ted.
            I do not consider satisfying my curiosity a waste of time.

        • Scipio says:

          5. I will not perish if I do not publish.

          no one who matters
          will ever see your work or take it
          seriously if you do not have the courage
          to submit it to a real scientific journal

          that’s the way it is

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Sci,
            It is simple. If when CO2 and WV stop increasing in parallel, averag.e global temperature follows WV I am right. If averag.e global temperature follows CO2, I am wrong and Hitran is wrong.

          • Svante says:

            Not going to happen, CO2 drives WV (except for what is left in the pipeline).

        • Dan,

          This is exactly how I feel about it too. But if you are curious as you state, some people like Prof Herman Harde do publish on this discussion. See in example “What humans contribute to Atmospheric CO2 : Comparison of Carbon cycle models with observations.”
          He also published in Elsevier “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere.” But peer review pulled it down after publication. He was not allowed to react in Elsevier and needed to move to another publisher to publish his response on the reactions.
          He did however proposed to update climate models with solar and cloud formation feedback that are not part of the previous climate models. Interesting contributions to the discussion I would say.

          • bdgwx says:

            Harde conflates residence time with adjustment time. Kohler et al. provide excellent commentary on the differences and how Harde confuses the two and the profound effect it has on his conclusion.

            The journal Global and Planetary Change did not retract his paper though they probably should have.

            Models have been incorporating solar and cloud forcing/feedback for quite some time.

      • Nate says:

        Dan,

        You appreciate constructive feedback, but you will never get it from the real experts who will be able to tell you exactly what youve done right snd wrong if you dont submit for publication. They will not seek out your blog.

        Are non experts simply supposed to take your word that you have gotten the details right and not ignored some established facts?

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          This would not post 2/13/20
          Nate,
          I had hoped that you were expert enough to provide constructive feedback.

          I did not do any experiments. As far as I can tell, none of the data that I used are a product of peer review. It is stuff off the web from NASA, Hitran/Spe.ctracalc, reported by various ag.encies, or common knowledg.e. I compare from various sources where possible. Some stuff, like thermalization, is just educated common sense. The end product explains all measureable aspe.cts of climate chang.e since reasonably accurate measurements of temperature have be.come available, about 1895. It demonstrates that CO2 has nothing to do with climate and the main driver of climate chang.e has been water vapor increase.

          • Nate says:

            “It demonstrates that CO2 has nothing to do with climate and the main driver of climate chang.e has been water vapor increase.”

            No, no it doesnt. It demonstrates only that you have convinced yourself, but not for any other scientifically literate people.

            Many pevious papers showed that CO2 DOES affect climate. And they take into account things that you dont, like general circulation. You havent bothered to address their findings, discuss them, nor show what they have done wrong.

            Your analysis is not quantitative, with no error analysis, as I have explained. Yet that is essential to mske any claim in science.

            It is the height of hubris for you to claim, that your analysis ‘demonstrates’ thst all previous results are wrong. You havent demonstrated that.

            You are simply expressing a belief.

            Water vapor condenses at ordinary surface temperatures, while co2 does not. It has been shown that removing all the co2 results in almost all water vapor becoming liquid or solid. Ice-albedo feedbacks take over and we get a snowball Earth.

          • Nate says:

            Dan, the problem with your HiTran calculation is that you are only looking at ground level “On average at ground level, according to the comparatively low populations used by Hitran, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by “.

            This ignores the the enhancement of the GHE by CO2 which takes place high in the troposphere. That is where the action is, where added CO2 raises the effective radiating level, and temperature, of co2 molecules radiating to space.

          • Tim Casson-Medhurst says:

            “It has been shown that removing all the co2 results in almost all water vapor becoming liquid or solid. Ice-albedo feedbacks take over and we get a snowball Earth.”

            Shown? In models who’s control runs never vary much until CO2 is varied? Speaking of hubris…

          • Nate says:

            Correct, shown in general circulation models that incorporate established atmospheric physics. There is no other way to know, other than looking at the paleo record, where we do see Iceball Earths.

            We have observed all the model components in action. We see that changes in atm co2 produce changes in radiative forcing that agree with theory. We know from 1LOT that the large negative rad forcing from losing all co2 will result in cooling. We observe that cooler air holds less water vapor, which results in further neg radiative forcing. We have observed expected ice-albedo feedback.

            Would the model results be quantitatively accurate about temp and % ice cover? Prob not.

            But basic physics and observations assure us of the general pattern. that there will be a large reduction in temp and large increase in ice cover.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            Many pevious papers showed that CO2 DOES affect climate. Can you name even one? I am unaware of any. The observation that, during the last and previous glaciations CO2 change FOLLOWED temperature change and several other observations listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com refute this.

            what they have done wrong Is failing to consider the Quantum Mechanics determinations by Hitran which show that a WV molecule absorbs about 1.37 times as much energy as a CO2 molecule and that water vapor molecules have been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. They also apparently did not even look at the measured WV increase let alone account for the WV increasing faster than possible from temperature increase.

            You are simply expressing a belief No, I am showing calculations and the conclusion that the calculations lead to.

            It has been shown that removing all the co2 results in almost all water vapor becoming liquid or solid. Perhaps in opinion or faulty model. Water, even as ice, has vapor pressure which forces WV into the atmosphere. WV has been increasing faster

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            problem with your HiTran calculation is that you are only looking at ground level I spent a lot of time looking at Hitran output at many different altitudes. That is where the action is Not so. Comparison shows absorb/emit intensity to be more than 100 times greater at ground level than at 10 km so any enhancement of the GHE by CO2 high in the troposphere would be tiny. Perhaps more important is the output from Modtran which corroborates thermalization and emission to space from WV mole.cules, espe.cially high in the tropopause. Added cooling from more CO2 in the stratosphere (more ghg present to emit to space) is, I believe, corre.ctly accounted for in the GCMs. The increased temperature at the poles is consistent with more CO2 be.cause the low temperature there means very little WV.

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “shown in general circulation models that incorporate established atmospheric physics. ”

            You’re mistaken Nate. The GCMs have no physics for clouds, they’re fitted. And when you incorporate a fit into “physics”, no matter how accurate you might think that simplified physics is, it results in a fit.

          • Nate says:

            “Youre mistaken Nate. The GCMs have no physics for clouds, theyre fitted. And when you incorporate a fit into physics, no matter how accurate you might think that simplified physics is, it results in a fit.”

            All physics models are an approximation of reality, that averages over or neglects factors deemed unimportant.

            The question is whether they are able to predict.

            SaParameterization for clouds is done in weather models. Their prediction track record is very good.

          • Nate says:

            Dan,

            Youve ignored this portion of my post:

            “where added CO2 raises the effective radiating level, and temperature, of co2 molecules radiating to space.”

            This is a key point of how the enhanced GHE works, that your HiTran analysis at the surface is missing.

          • Nate says:

            Dan, Here is a decent explanation of why your HiTran calculation is missing the main CO2 effect:

            http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “Parameterization for clouds is done in weather models. Their prediction track record is very good.”

            Climate models are fundamentally different to weather models, Nate. Weather models aren’t trying to resolve the minuscule changes in climate from timestep to timestep. Climate models have to model climate changes to 15 mins.

            Modelers have most likely led you to believe they may not be able to predict the climate in 10 years but they can do it in a hundred years. Is that your expectation?

          • Nate says:

            Toolman, I get that you dont think it can be done, but not the why.

            In some ways modeling global warming over decades is easier than weather modeling over a week, where chaos is dominant.

            Modeling global warming is analogous to predicting the ave temp vs time of a pot of water put on a stove burner. While predicting weather is analogous to predicting the rapid local temp fluctuations throughout the pot.

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “In some ways modeling global warming over decades is easier than weather modeling over a week, where chaos is dominant.”

            That’s what you’ve been led to believe. But what you probably dont get is that GCMs have to calculate the right forcings and feedbacks over those decades for every 15 minutes they step and they cant.

            The tiny climate signal must be accurately calculated so it can propagate from step to step over millions of steps.

            Weather is a different problem because it doesn’t matter if their energy calculations all go wrong over a few days because that’s all they’re capable of.

          • bdgwx says:

            It might be good to point out that GCMs are not the only kind of climate model. There are also the energy budget models and heuristic/statistical models based on observations. A model does not have to be a GCM to be useful. The interesting thing is that different models/approaches produce similar results albeit with varying details. I just want to make sure people understand that climate science is not dependent upon GCMs. In fact, GCMs weren’t even thing when the first climate models were developed in the 1800’s.

          • Nate says:

            ” But what you probably dont get is that GCMs have to calculate the right forcings and feedbacks over those decades for every 15 minutes”

            Sure, standard for a computer simulation to use time steps much shorter than the times of interest, so relevant changes are small. Why is that a problem?

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “Why is that a problem?”

            Because they’re not capable of doing it. They’re necessarily a fit because they’re not actually physics based. The “physics” parts are simplified and low resolution and they’re combined at every time step with parameterised (ie fitted) components, not the least of which are clouds.

            You’ve been led to believe they’re modeling climate but in fact they’re “modeling” an expectation of climate.

          • Nate says:

            “Because theyre not capable of doing it. Theyre necessarily a fit because theyre not actually physics based.”

            False assertion without evidence, Toolman. Where are you getting this info?

            The models are MOSTLY physics based, they solve Newton’s laws and hydrodynamic equations to model the movement of air masses, and use thermodynamic laws to calculate the movement of heat into and out of air masses and surfaces. They can successfully model the general circulation pattern of the atmosphere with just physics!

            “The ‘physics’ parts are simplified and low resolution and theyre combined at every time step with parameterised (ie fitted) components, not the least of which are clouds.”

            Some ‘parameterization’ is needed to avoid wasting computer power on determining, needlessly, where every bloody cloud is.

            You really dont seem to understand how simulations work. They are solving differential equations numerically on small time and spatial steps.

            Small time steps are standard and good. The smaller the better, generally, because in nature time is continuous!

            This is how modern weather models have improved so dramatically from 50 y ago, by using smaller space and time steps.

          • TimTheToolMan says:

            “False assertion without evidence, Toolman. Where are you getting this info?”

            Its well known clouds aren’t based in Physics and are parameterised. If you haven’t already researched it, you should.

            “The models are MOSTLY physics based”

            But they need to be completely physics based to resolve the tiny amount of CO2 induced forcing and the associated feedback changes. As it is, clouds are responsible for hundreds of Watts of energy flow in the atmosphere and putting it in perspective measured ocean warming is about half a Watt.

            “Some ‘parameterization’ is needed to avoid wasting computer power on determining, needlessly, where every bloody cloud is.”

            There is no physics that describes clouds. Parameterisation isn’t a choice. The amount of energy the atmosphere is conveying to resolve the CO2 forcing certainly does require an accurate model of clouds.

            But they dont have it. The modelers would have you believe they’re resolving the CO2 forcing but its utterly swamped by the fitted cloud component as well as other parameterised components. Clouds are the easiest to understand.

            You dont believe any of this of course. In fact you probably believe the tuning to get the TOA imbalance in the required range is fine too and not indicative of a fitted model.

          • bdgwx says:

            Tim,

            Are you suggesting that a model has to be 100% perfect to be useful?

            Do you have a model that handles clouds better than what we already have?

            How would you solve this problem?

  20. Scipio says:

    here is the disgusting man that Roy praises:

    So youre faced with dyed-in-the-wool socialist whos not even a Democrat, the conservative talker declared. A gay guy, 37 years old, loves kissing his husband on debate stages. Can you see Trump have fun with that?

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/rush-limbaugh-claims-mr-man-trump-will-have-fun-with-gay-guy-buttigieg-kissing-his-husband?ref=home

    • Sisyphus says:

      “here is the disgusting man that Roy praises”

      Limbaugh is no prize, but some of the things he decries are worthy of mature consideration. Vice has turned 180 degrees to virtue in the public square; and that is a clean fact.

      We now are even led to associate people of color with vice to advance pernicious agendas which have torn the very fabric of society to the point of destruction.

      So, like him or not, at least he has the fortitude to put forth some objective matters of moral decency for reflection on the public stage.

      “We will remember in November…”

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        Scipio,

        No matter how enlightened you think everyone should be many Americans, including traditional Democrats, are going to have trouble watching Buttigieg kissing his husband on stage, just a fact. I would not vote for a gay man for President,even a conservative, it is abnormal.

      • Nate says:

        What a surprise that Stephen, so concerned about infringing on individual liberty, cant abide people loving whoever they choose.

        “It is abnormal”

        Sure just as black-white couples, female doctors, etc used to be abnormal.

        We adapt or die off, your choice.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          So, it’s a choice?

        • Nate says:

          No Stephen, its pretty clear what I meant.

          Intolerance is a choice. Letting it affect who you hire is discriminatory, and not recommended.

          Homophobia is a choice, and sometimes indicative of repressed homosexual tendencies… You maybe?

    • Nate says:

      “So, like him or not, at least he has the fortitude to put forth some objective matters of moral decency for reflection on the public stage.”

      Puleez, when it comes to Trump’s prolific failures of moral decency where is his fortitude? Where is the fortitude from evangelical Christians?

  21. Eben says:

    For CO2 in atmosphere watch Prof Salby
    https://youtu.be/sGZqWMEpyUM

  22. ren says:

    If not for the Earth’s strong magnetic field (as of today), temperature changes on Earth would be extremely susceptible to changes in space weather. The decrease in the strength of the geomagnetic field in the Western Hemisphere clearly confirms this.

    • ren says:

      In June 2014, after just six months collecting data, Swarm confirmed the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere. But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field had strengthened since January. The measurements also confirmed the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia. These changes are based on the magnetic signals stemming from Earth’s core.
      http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2014/06/Magnetic_field_changes

  23. m d mill says:

    Thanks Dr. Spencer for your work. I will continue to follow Occam’s Razor and prefer your simple model as long as it holds true. So far so good(actually great). I will be highly surprised if it starts to fail significantly within the next 50 years.

  24. RG says:

    I tried to read all the comments, but… too many…
    Just a question: why nobody even mention the role of calcareous plankton in this co2 “war”?
    I mean, as far as I know CaCO3 shell formation is a process that throw co2 into the water and thus in the atmosphere. Now, it seems the rate of calcification is reducing (foram and nanno should do that), which means less co2 to the ocean and more uptake from the atmosphere. Is it right?

  25. Dan Pangburn says:

    Apparently there is a way to post quotation marks here. How is that done?

  26. Entropic man says:

    RG

    More detail.

    When CO2 dissolves in water it reacts to form carbonic acid.

    CO2 + H2O H2CO3

    Carbonic acid breaks down to bicarbonate and hydrogen.

    H2CO3 HCO3- + H+

    bicarbonate becomes carbonate and hydrogen.

    HCO3- CO3– + H+

    Forums and shellfish make their shells from carbonate.

    Ca+ + CO3– CaCO3

    First thought. When the atmosphere has more CO2, more CO2 dissolves in water, more carbonate forms and shellfish make more calcium carbonate. CO2 is permanently removed from the system!

    In practice it goes the other way.

    These are equilibrium reactions. When extra CO2 dissolves, the extra H+ released reduces the pH. This shifts the balance from carbonate back towards bicarbonate and carbonic acid.
    This limits further CO2 absorbtion, so a lower pH ocean is a less effective carbon sink.

    A lower pH ocean has less carbonate, so forams etc make less calcium carbonate. The lower pH also damages their metabolisms. In the end extra CO2 makes the ocean less favourable for life.

    • RG says:

      Actually, I found that the reaction involving calcite shell formation is usually depicted as:
      Ca2+ + 2HCO3- = CaCO3 + CO2
      So that the more acidic is the water less calcification which means less CO2 in the UML and higher possibility that CO2 from atmosphere to the ocean.
      I read a few paper about foram and coccolithophores, foram shells seems to be thinner than before and cocco should also go in the same direction. This would increase the bio/pump against the carbonate pump. This should be a negative feedback counteracting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  27. Rob Mitchell says:

    According to Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE) data, the 2019 minimum Central Arctic region sea ice extent was 2,950,024.55 km^2 in September (Day 258).

    Question – will 274 deg. K be enough to melt the Central Arctic Region ice below 1,000,000 km^2 this century? I say no. The reason being is that the Arctic warming during this multi-decadal modern warming period has occurred in the NH winter. Not in the summer. To melt the Arctic ice away, there has to be warming in the summer. That isn’t happening.

    All of this concern about CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly hysterical. And our news media has done a disservice to the public by fanning the flames of this hysteria. I think Dr. Spencer’s comments about CO2 on his Global Warming: Natural or Manmade page are valid.

    What say you human-caused global warming alarmists?

  28. TimTheToolMan says:

    One would prefer to choose a doctor who kept up with the latest in medicine even in fields one wouldn’t expect a GP to need day to day over a GP who didn’t ,wouldn’t you think?

  29. Rob Mitchell says:

    Let me try that again. Hopefully this will take you right to the Central Arctic MASIE diagram.

    https://tinyurl.com/v6lkj2b

    • Rob Mitchell says:

      See those brief little dips in 2007, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2018? I seriously doubt that will be enough to make a dent in the Central Arctic region.

      • Svante says:

        Gee, the ice never reached its full extent in the winter of 2017/2018. In the central arctic!!!
        That’s alarming.

        • Rob Mitchell says:

          Anything alarming about the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area diagram Svante? Since 2005, the sea ice area has been quite stable.

          • bdgwx says:

            For Arctic sea ice area…

            – The trend of the annual mean is -0.23e6/decade and -0.22e6/decade since 1979 and 2005 respectively.

            – The trend of the September mean is -048e6/decade and -0.32e6/decade since 1979 and 2005 respectively.

            – The trend of the March mean is -0.04e6/decade and -0.16e6/decade since 1979 and 2005 respectively.

            For Arctic sea ice extent…

            – The trend of the annual mean is -0.55e6/decade and -0.42e6/decade since 1979 and 2005 respectively.

            – The trend of the September mean is -0.82e6/decade and -0.47e6/decade since 1979 and 2005 respectively.

            – The trend of the March mean is -0.42e6/decade and -0.30e6/decade since 1979 and 2005 respectively.

          • Svante says:

            bdgwx, he cherry picked the central arctic.

            You would think it should be the last bastion to fall, but his diagram shows it never reached its usual winter maximum 2017/2018.

          • bdgwx says:

            Oh my.

            Rob, that is the equivalent of drawing a conclusion regarding how fast an ice cube melts by observing only the center most portion of it. Of course it’ll appear stable…until it too starts to melt that is. See the problem?

      • Entropic man says:

        For physical reasons the high Arctic stays close to 273K even in Summer. Turning ice at 273K to water at 273K takes the same energy as warming that water by eighty degrees, so all the available energy goes into ice melt rather than raising the temperature.

        The sea ice is shrinking from the edges towards the centre.

        The central Arctic is not losing extent, but look at the graphs for the Bering Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Cook inlet in your link. All are showing reduction over time.

        Because of an old troll this site does not tolerate the letter D and the letter C next to each other. Hence the stars.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”The central Arctic is not losing extent, but look at the graphs for the Bering Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Cook inlet in your link. All are showing reduction over time”.

          During one month of summer. The rest of the year it’s business as usual.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, and tell us about that book you read, you know that intrepid north pole explorer who reported solid ice all the way.

  30. Dan Pangburn says:

    Nate,
    Up-thread you asserted that I ignored a portion of your post relating to radiation above the tropopause. Apparently you have not looked very closely at Se.ction 3 of (click my name). More CO2 above the tropopause enhances the cooling there. That might be the only place where I agree with the GCMs. The added cooling from increased CO2 above the tropopause counters the added warming from added CO2 at ground level.

    Apparently Clive is unaware of the 1.47% per de.cade increase in water vapor. He does not mention this or thermalization. Also he couldnt remember where he got the 25 m mean free path of photons from and did not refute a post of 1.5 m. I do not think it matters much in that rang.e but do think the combination of absorbers, CO2 and WV, should be considered tog.ether. The important understanding is that the absorbed radiation energy is shared with surrounding mole.cules, i.e. thermalization.

    • Nate says:

      “Up-thread you asserted that I ignored a portion of your post relating to radiation above the tropopause.”

      Nope, never said that.

      It is all about the emission elevation WITHIN the troposphere of the CO2 and the increase in that elevation with increasing CO2 level.

      You still have not addressed this point.

      Here is another post by Clive Best that maybe useful for you to look at and respond to.

      http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597

      He notes that:

      “Instead of calculating radiative transfer from the surface up through the atmosphere to space, exactly the opposite is done. IR photons originating from space are tracked downwards to Earth in order to derive for each wavelength the height at which more than half of them get absorbed within a 100 meter path length. This identifies the height where the atmosphere becomes opaque at a given wavelength. This also coincides with the effective emission height for photons to escape from the atmosphere to space….”

      And

      ” The calculation can then show how changes in CO2 concentrations affect the emission height and thereby reduce net outgoing radiation(OLR). The net reduction in OLR is found to be in agreement with far more complex radiative transfer models. This demonstrates how the greenhouse effect on Earth is determined by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and not at the surface.”

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        OK, that is how I inter.preted what you did say which was: ,,where added CO2 raises the effective radiating level, and temperature, of co2 molecules radiating to space.,,
        My point is that I did not ignore high altitude radiation where more CO2 makes it cooler. This cooling counters the tiny part of the warming attributed to added CO2 at ground level. Many other observations as listed in Section 2 of (click my name) indicate that the net effect of CO2 increase is negligible.

        Comparison of Hitran runs at ground level vs at 10 km (tropopause) shows absorb/emit intensity to be about 300 times higher at ground level. Thus the slowing of the energy flux is much greater at lower altitudes where WV dominates. That is consistent with WV increase being more important to GW than CO2 increase. The hash in wavenumber range 200 to 600 in TOA graphs of flux vs wavenumber shows that a lot of outward directed radiation from WV makes it all the way to space.

  31. Snape says:

    @Entropic Man

    [For physical reasons the high Arctic stays close to 273K even in Summer. Turning ice at 273K to water at 273K takes the same energy as warming that water by eighty degrees, so all the available energy goes into ice melt rather than raising the temperature.]

    For my own benefit, I try to put ideas like this into a more familiar, easy to understand context:

    – Shine a heat lamp onto a very cold slap of concrete. There is nothing to prevent the concrete from warming to a temperature above 32 F.

    – Shine a heat lamp onto a slab of ice. The ice heats up until it reaches 32 F, at which point it starts to melt instead of continuing to get warmer.

    – Air is mostly heated by the ground, mostly transparent to sunlight. Therefore the air temperature will not rise above 32 F if the ground temperature does not rise above 32 F.

    ******

    Is this an accurate way of looking at the situation?

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    Good for you, Roy.

  33. Snape says:

    @Nate

    [The calculation can then show how changes in CO2 concentrations affect the emission height and thereby reduce net outgoing radiation(OLR). The net reduction in OLR is found to be in agreement with far more complex radiative transfer models. This demonstrates how the greenhouse effect on Earth is determined by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and not at the surface.]

    I dont like that idea, at least in principle. Is it supported by climate model simulations?

Leave a Reply