Wood Romances

A paper was published this week that argues that low-sensitivity models do a poor job of reproducing CERES-derived EEI trends. In the words of the paper, the authors used CMIP6 models "to illustrate that low climate sensitivity models have an EEI trend behavior that is inconsistent with the satellite-derived EEI trend." Even though models with an ECS near 3°C do a good job of reproducing current warming, CMIP6 models often differ in the in EEI trends. For instance, The CERES data show a stronger trend in EEI than the multi-model CMIP6 mean and higher EEI in 2023 than any of the CMIP6 models. However, for individual CMIP6 models and ensembles, EEI is comparable to or higher at other periods than the CERES value in 2023. The difference in trends can be seen by comparing the red CERES line to the black CMIP6 model mean. Even though the interannual variability in the CMIP6 models is consistent CERES observations, the observed trend in EEI, especially since about 2010, is higher t...

In a recent talk  (relevant excerpt from John Shewchuk  here ) given to an Australian political group called the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), William Happer argued that doubling CO2 causes only 0.71 K warming, and that amount of warming for 2xCO2 is too small to matter. He then suggests that in order to make CO2 a problem, scientists had to invent giant feedbacks to amplify warming by as much as 10x the amount caused by CO2 alone. I've seen this claim repeated by others on X and other social media platforms, but as best I can tell Happer originates this particular argument. So I'd like to consider, is this plausible at all? I think it's pretty easy to investigate this and show conclusively that it is not. In fact, even Happer disagreed with this claim as recently as 2020. Ranges for ECS/TCR in IPCC Reports Happer's Argument At about the 1 minute mark of the above linked excerpt, Happer explains his math on how he arrives at 0.71 K for equilibrium climate sensitiv...

A recent paper[1] published in the MDPI journal Climate by Frank Stefani provides a wonderful illustration of why we should never treat papers from MDPI journals as having any competent, let alone robust peer review. This paper argues that TCR = 1.1°C (0.6°C - 1.6°C) for doubling CO2. I'm not going to evaluate the entire paper here, since that would take too much time. The paper does make some counterfactual claims, like there's a "nearly perfect correlation of solar activity with temperatures over about 150 years." That's objectively false, but the correlation between CO2 forcings and GMST has an r^2 = 0.88. There's also some comical contrarian alarmism in this paper: "we fear that the huge Milankovitch drivers will—perhaps much too soon—massively interfere with the solar and anthropogenic factors that were considered in this paper." There's a lot we could say about this paper, but I want to focus here on some elementary math errors that would ...

A few days ago, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote a piece for the Heritage Foundation called, " Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models " ( PDF ) essentially arguing that models show too much warming compared to observations, and if we stick to observations, "global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation." He claims to frame his argument in terms of answering three questions: Is recent warming of the climate system materially attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as is usually claimed? Is the rate of observed warming close to what computer climate models—used to guide public policy—show? Has the observed rate of warming been sufficient to justify alarm and extensive regulation of CO2 emissions? We should keep in mind that this is a political document intended to support the political aims of the Heritage Foundation, and Spencer has carefully selected what he says and doesn't say to fit the political agenda of the Heritage Found...

The popular contrarian blog No Trick Zone has made a name for itself for compiling lists of papers that are claimed to demonstrate that some aspect of climate science is all wrong. The papers in these lists generally fall into a few categories: Papers published in junk (pay-to-play) or predatory journals. Papers published in legitimate journals that don't say what NTZ claims they say. Papers published in legitimate journals that do in fact challenge some aspect of AGW. Studies show that papers in the third category total less than 1% of the recent peer-reviewed literature, so you have to wade through a ton of papers in the first two categories to find the one(s) that belong in the third. It used to be when people promoted these NTZ blogposts on social media, I'd go through the trouble of looking up the papers to confirm that the general principle I describe above still holds true. I no longer waste my time with that (Brandolini's Law and all), but occasionally WUWT picks u...

Despite the common misconception that estimates for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) are only derived from model simulations (sometimes erroneously said to be model inputs), there are many ways to estimate ECS. Here on this blog, I've used the energy balance equation with empirical data, and despite varying levels of complexity in quantifying forcings, I keep coming up with a value for ECS of ~3.2°C for 2xCO2 . I consider these back-of-the-envelope calculations, fitting for a blogpost to show IPCC estimates are plausible and realistic, but not really for much else. All these types of equations cover a relatively short time period (~175 years) and can be significantly impacted by the uncertainties in the relevant forcings, most importantly aerosols. Some recent evidence suggests that scientists may be underestimating the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and thus underestimating ECS. In fact, Hansen published a paper recently suggesting that ECS could be as high as 4.8°C.[1] ...

It's well-established physics that the Earth's surface is ~33K warmer than its effective temperature, and the relationship between increasing CO2 and radiative forcing can be approximated by the following logarithmic equation: ΔF = 5.35*ln (C/Co) where, Co is an initial concentration of CO2 (preindustrial CO2 is generally regarded as 280 ppm).  C is the concentration of CO2 at any given time (currently 420 ppm). The equation shows the change in the outgoing flux at the top of the atmosphere caused by a change in CO2 concentrations. Since CO2 concentrations have increased by 50%, we can say CO2 has caused a decrease in the outgoing flux of 5.35*ln (1.5) = 2.2 W/m^2. As a result of this decrease in outgoing flux, more energy enters the climate system than escapes into space, and so the planet's surface must warm until the outgoing flux equals incoming again. The relationship between a change in radiative forcing and temperature is linear, so ΔT = λ*ΔF So essentially the relat...

Cenozoic CO2 and Temperature A new paper was published this month that I think will produce some exciting new insights for those interested in historical geology and paleoclimate studies. The paper is a product of the Cenozoic Carbon dioxide Proxy Integration Project (CenCO2PIP) Consortium, and it looks to reconstruct the proxy evidence for CO2 levels during the Cenozoic (the last 66 million years). The Cenozoic began after the asteroid impact (and/or volcanism) at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary that caused the mass-extinction that included the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. The value of this kind of work will have significant benefits for scientists as they seek to constrain estimates for long-term climate sensitivity (ESS). We can think of "sensitivity" on roughly three time scales:  TCR : On a near-immediate time scale, GMST increases with increasing CO2 in what is called transient climatic response (TCR), which generally speaking tells you how quickly temperat...