Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

Här kommer en väldigt teknisk men oerhört intressant analys av IPCC:s sätt att använda sig av ” climate sensitivity ΔTλ to radiative forcing och hur man har manipulerat och justerat dessa värden (the magnitude of the radiative feedback) -ökat från1995 till 2001, ytterligare ökat till 2007. ALLT för att det bättre skall passa in på IPCC:s hypoteser! 

ÄR DET INTE VETENSKAPLIGT SÅ SÄG!

”In the IPCC’s methodology, climate sensitivity ΔTλ to radiative forcing is the product of three factors:

1. Tropopausal radiative forcing ΔF

ΔF  ≈  5.35 ln(C/C0)  ==>   ΔF2x   ≈  5.35 ln 2         W m-2,        (1)

where (C/C0) is a proportionate increase in CO2 concentration and, specifically, ΔF2x ≈ 3.708 W m-2 is the radiative forcing at CO2 doubling. For simplicity, no significant error will arise here if it is assumed that all other anthropogenic forcings are slightly net-negative, so that ΔF2x ≈ 5 ln 2 ≈ 3.466 W m-2.

2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ

κ  =  ΔTκ / ΔF  =  ΔTλ / (ΔF + bΔTλ)        °K W-1 m2,              (2)

where ΔTκ is the temperature response to forcings only, without feedbacks; ΔTλ is the temperature change in response to forcings plus feedbacks; and b is the sum in W m-2 °K-1 of all unamplified temperature feedbacks. The key parameter κ is not mentioned in IPCC (2007), and no error-bars are given. The value κ ≈ 0.313 °K W-1 m2 implicit in IPCC (2007) is the reciprocal of the ”radiative cooling response” –

”Under these simplifying assumptions the amplification [f] of the global warming from a feedback parameter [b] (in W m-2 °C-1) with no other feedbacks operating is 1 / (1 + [bκ -1]), where [κ -1] is the ‘uniform temperature’ radiative cooling response (of value approximately -3.2 W m-2 °C-1; Bony et al., 2006). If n independent feedbacks operate, [b] is replaced by (λ1 + λ 2+ … λ n).” (IPCC, 2007: ch.8, footnote)

3. The feedback multiplier f

f = (1 – bκ)-1.                             

This unitless variable is evaluated in IPCC (2007, ch.8) using the feedback-amplification function given in Bode (1945). First, we note the dependence of f not only upon b but also upon κ –

”The feedback factor reconsidered

 The feedback factor f accounts for at least two-thirds of all radiative forcing in IPCC (2007); yet it is not expressly quantified, and no ”Level Of Scientific Understanding” is assigned either to f or to the two variables b and κ upon which it is dependent.

Several difficulties are apparent.

Not the least of these difficulties is that, if the upper estimates of each of the climate-relevant feedbacks listed in IPCC (2007) are summed, an instability arises. The maxima are –

Water vapor 1.98, lapse rate -0.58, surface albedo 0.34, cloud albedo 1.07, CO2 0.57, total 3.38 W m-2 K-1.

The equation f = (1 – bκ)-1 becomes unstable as b → κ-1 = 3.2 W m-2 K-1. Yet, if each of the individual feedbacks imagined by the IPCC is increased to less than the IPCC’s maximum, an instability or ”runaway greenhouse effect” is reached.

Yet it is reliably inferred from palaeoclimatological data that no ”runaway greenhouse effect” has occurred in the half billion years since the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration peaked at almost 20 times today’s value, as Figure 2 shows:”

 ”It is not for a non-climatologist such as me to say which climate-sensitivity value is correct. On this brief analysis, however, it is evident that the models on which the IPCC relies are little better than expensive guesswork, and that no great reliance can be placed upon the IPCC’s central estimates, still less on its high-end estimates. As a policymaker, I should be profoundly reluctant, given the current state of the science, to recommend to Ministers that they should take the drastic actions advocated in some circles to mitigate ”global warming.”

Set aside the self-evident truth that adaptation as (and if) necessary would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective than mitigation, a conclusion that tends to be overlooked as a result of the IPCC’s bizarre decision to establish separate working groups to consider adaptation and mitigation. The simple calculations in this paper have demonstrated a strong likelihood that the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are prodigiously exaggerated; that there may be a good reason why, contrary to all the projections of the IPCC’s models, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001 (see Figure 4); and that there is no ”climate crisis” at all.”

Analysen finns här.

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/

En tidigare analys på samma tema finns här:

http://climatesci.org/2007/11/30/climate-metric-reality-check-1-the-sum-of-climate-forcings-and-feedbacks-is-less-than-the-2007-ipcc-best-estimate-of-human-climate-forcings/

 

Upper left panel: a forcing dF is input (by multiplication) to the climate sensitivity parameter λ, yielding dT as the output. Lower left panel: the forcing dF is input to the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ, successively amplified by temperature feedbacks summing to b. Right panel: the full diagram illustrates the impact of individual climate feedbacks, together with κ, so that λ = κf. Diagrams follow kind suggestions by Dr. David Evans
Timeline of climate stability: Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, global mean surface temperatures are thought not to have exceeded a plateau in the region of 22 °C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today’s near-record-low concentration. If the graph is correct, then the instability inherent in the IPCC’s error-bars for the principal temperature feedbacks has not occurred in reality, suggesting that the IPCC’s estimates may be substantial exaggerations.

Table 1 shows that, although the estimated forcing effect of CO2 has been reduced by more than one-fifth in 12 years, climate sensitivity has risen by a quarter. The sole reason for this increase is feedback

The growing role of feedbacks: In the IPCC’s 1995 report, the value of the feedback factor f appears to have been ~1.80, rising to 3.08 in 2007. In 1995, feedbacks accounted for less than half of all forcings; by 2007 they accounted for more than two-thirds.

  The trend that caught the IPCC by surprise: Since late 2001, the trend of global surface temperatures has been downward. ”Global warming” stopped in 1998; and, though it may resume in future years, the rate of warming is self-evidently less than that which the IPCC had expected, and is very likely to be harmless.

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Annonser

Etiketter: , , ,

20 svar to “Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?”

  1. swenson Says:

    Kan det sägas tydligare än med följande citat från rapporten ovan:

    there is no “climate crisis” at all.”

    När skall den svenska regeringen och oppositionen börja tala klartext? Det finns ingen CO2-klimatkris. Den påstådda globala uppvärmningen om 100 år är en bluff. Människans påverkbara utsläpp av CO2 påverkar inte klimatet ens marginellt. Det är andra faktorer. Plus det faktum att jorden snarare går en kall period till mötes än en varm.

    Miljöförstörande etanol som drivmedel förstör mer av jordens och människors resurser än vad som är accetabelt. Miljöbilar är ett rent skämt om de drivs av etanol. Bara för 3 år sedan var detta en sanning, samma typ av ohållbara sanning som nu spådomarna om den globala uppvärmningen om 100 år. Snart komer den globala påstådda uppvärmningen att visa sig vara detta århundrades största bluff.

    Vad som för miljöns skull behövs är kärnkraft av den nya modellen. Kanske behövs eldrivna bilar även om de också bl.a. genom batterierna i dagens utförande är miljöfarliga.

    Vad vi absolut inte behöver är C02-utsläpps-rätter och hela det oansvariga sättet att handla med dessa. Rena lurendrejeriet. Det behövs naturligtvis inga extra bensinskatter för att förhindra en global uppvärmning som inte kommer och som vi i vilket fall som helst inte kan göra något åt genom minskade CO2-utsläpp.

    Vi kan inte lägga på människor och industri ökade kostnader (sänkt levnadsstandard inom bl.a. skola, vård och omsorg) för att betala för andras utsläpp av CO2 eftersom det är fullständigt meningslöst. Hela frågan om global warming är en hysteri som piskas upp av alla som har ett intresse därav, antingen ifråga om makt eller pengar.

    Sanningen går att läsa på denna och andra bloggar – inte i svenska massmedia. Sanningen om de av människan påverkbara CO2-utsläppen och den globala uppvärmningen om 100 år är att

    there is no “climate crisis” at all.”

  2. Jürgen Hubert Says:

    That ”cooling graph” published in this article is the result of deliberate distortion of the available climate data – you can see my analysis of it here:

    http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html

    And I wouldn’t put too much stock in the rest of the article’s allegations, either…

  3. John Brown Says:

    It’s interesting to follow the debate on Hubert’s blog. It seems to me that he is manipulating his own analysis. By selecting a certain method of calculating he likes to give the impression that with certainty there will be man made global warming of significance and doomsday proportions a hundred years from now. Very few scientist and ordinary educated people believe that is true based on evidence so far presented.

    Criticizing the skeptical scientists and others who does not share Hubert’s analysis is of no importance if the consequences are not taken into consideration. Based on analysis the important question about global warming or not 100 years from now – and what is man made or not – have an enormous decisive impact on today’s threatened excessive taxpaying and suggested hilarious emission trading.

    Skeptical scientists should hence be listen to as well as Hubert in an open debate as very much is at stake for the well-being of ordinary citizens of the world.

    IPPC and Al Gore should not have the last word. Their facts have been distorted. The debate has just started, not ended as the latter has said.

  4. Emperor’s green clothes : UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What it […]

  5. Unstoppable Solar Cycles « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What it actually means,  IPCC models are incoherent and […]

  6. A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] for the foreseeable future.  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled,  Why multiple climate model […]

  7. The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What it actually means,  IPCC models are incoherent and […]

  8. No climate model had ever been validated! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] for the foreseeable future.  ROBUSTNESS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled,  Why multiple climate model […]

  9. The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […]  2 miljarder år av temperaturdata!,  Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface […]

  10. Documenting the global warming fraud - “Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […]  2 miljarder år av temperaturdata!,  Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface […]

  11. How we know that they, the Global Warming Hysterics, know they are lying « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] The editor of the International Journal of Climatology has finally said that they do not require authors to provide supporting data,  The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!,  The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  The Great Global Warming Hoax,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?, […]

  12. IPCC - 80 percent of its members where not climate scientists « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!,  The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  The Great Global Warming Hoax,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  […]

  13. Peer Review – What it actually means 2 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?, […]

  14. Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’ « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor? […]

  15. Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor? […]

  16. The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor? […]

  17. The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] miljarder år av temperaturdata!,  Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface […]

  18. Rajendra Pachauri, The head of IPCC endorses and defends India’s aggressive coal plant building! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What it […]

  19. There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!,  IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What it […]

  20. GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] behind the Kyoto protocol!,  Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,  Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?,  Outstanding Job That Anthony Watts Has Done On Documenting The Immediate Environment Of Suface […]

Lämna ett svar till Documenting the global warming fraud - “Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Avbryt svar

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: