ECS applies to all forcings, not just CO2. The problem with small ECS values is that if you discount the effect of CO2 then all the other forcings are too small to explain the observed warming.

Oct 2, 2017 at 12:13 AM | Entropic man

The warming observed/recorded by Climate Science, does not match that predicted by models, that were presumably programmed with the same assumptions that you make now.

As Climate Science has now confirmed that models are overheating, and don't know why, can you consider the possibility that some of the programming of Climate Models might be based on flawed Climate Science presumptions about ECS?

Golf Charlie

Are you a bit? Your comments have become formulaic.

Nothing to do with models.

Forcing can be measured. At present increasing CO2 is by far the largest forcing.

If you accept this, that the warming is due to CO2, you can explain the observed warming with an ECS as low as 1.5.

If you discount CO2 then you have to explain how other smaller forcings can produce the observed warming. For that you need a much larger ECS, 6 or more.

In summary, if you want a realistic energy budget you can discount CO2 or have a small ECS. You cannot have both.

EM, your apparent dilemma requires the acceptance of all your presumptions and premises. I don't accept even the concept of forcing, or ECS for that matter. They both are part of a paradigm which is convenient for climate scientists but need not be taken as written in stone.

Oct 2, 2017 at 10:18 AM | Entropic man

It is the maths, theories and models of Climate Science that are wrong. Planet Earth has proved that, as Millar 2017 has confirmed. It could just be a single error or "rounded up guesstimate".

https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/

"Summary"
"Millar et al. attracted controversy for stating that climate models have shown too much warming in recent decades, even though others (including the IPCC) have said the same thing. Zeke Hausfather disputed this using an adjustment to model outputs developed by Cowtan et al. The combination of the adjustment and the recent El Nino creates a visual impression of coherence. But other measures not affected by the issues raised in Cowtan et al. support the existence of a warm bias in models. Gridcell extreme frequencies in CMIP5 models do not overlap with observations. And satellite-measured temperature trends in the lower troposphere run below the CMIP5 rates in the same way that the HadCRUT4 surface data do, including in the tropics. The model-observational discrepancy is real, and needs to be taken into account especially when using models for policy guidance."

At least some Climate Scientists have the ability to acknowledge that errors have always existed and been incorporated into the "Science" and its models from the outset.

If these errors cannot be found and corrected by Climate Science, why should policymakers listen to Climate Science, let alone compel taxpayers to pay for these mistakes and consequences?

Oct 2, 2017 at 10:18 AM | Entropic man

Your responses are formulaic. Always stating that the formulae used by Climate Science are right. They are not, so by definition, you are wrong.

Trying to shift blame and responsibility onto others, is a classic symptom of denial.

If Climate Science cannot self correct, it ceases to be a "science", and just becomes faith based politics.

Rhoda

Can an Oxfordshire housewife really be so ignorant of physics?

I have an A-level in physics. From when that meant something. There was no exam in critical thinking, but if there had been there would have been no marks for swallowing the other side's story without checking. Climate physics fails that check. Forcing is a borrowed concept which doesn't work as climate science uses it. CS? It may be right, but I've never seen a proof, it requires forcing to be right first. And forcing as used in climate science requires that a thousand (more?) interlinking processes allow just one minor one to have its effects considered as if they occurred independently.

Oct 2, 2017 at 2:40 PM | Entropic man

You are simpy proving your own inability to accept evidence that disagrees with your own beliefs, even when presented in "Peer Reviewed" Climate Science.

Weren't you supposed to be a science teacher?

Golf charlie, rhoda

You have given me lots of "evidence"

The problem is that a small amount of analysis shows that it contradicts the measured data or violates elementary physical laws. Even this retired schoolteacher can spot the problems.

I did the same Physics A Level as Rhoda. Perhaps she could use it to explain how our planetary energy budget works and changes without using concepts like forcing and feedback.

For the purposes of this discussion I would define a forcing as

Any influence on climate that originates from outside the climate system itself and influences the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth system.

A feedback is an internal change in the climate system in response to a forcing.

For example, an increase in the amount of sunlight reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere would be a forcing. The subsequent increase in surface temperature and SB radiation would be feedbacks.

EM I have presented you with argument and evidence regarding melting of basal glacial ice melting in West Antarctica and geothermal heat. What happened to your confident assertions that there is no link? Where is your evidence as requested?

Supertroll

There might be a link between volcanism and Antarctic ice melt, but I doubt it has any climatic significance.

Consider sources driving volcanic activity under the West Antarctic.

Let's start with you assertion that a subduction zone runs down the West Antarctic peninsular. The nearest plate boundary is where the Antarctic plate joins the Scotia plate , well North of the tip of the peninsula. That eliminates plate boundary eruptions.unless you can show that the Antarctic plate is splitting.

Next might be a hotspot like Hawaii. A series, of active volcanoes would show in the geology or as repeated ash layers in the ice. Nothing showed on a Google search except occasional deposition from Mt Erebus.

Third would be the type of increased heat flow from a thin crust as seen in SW England. As we discussed, energy flows are far too small to affect ice melt or climate.

Finally, even a large eruption would have very little effect on the ice. Krakatoa released 10^18 Joules. That is enough heat to melt 3×10^15 grams of ice. That is 3 cubic km.

To put that into perspective,. 3 cubic km of ice melt would increase sea level by 0.012mm.

If golf Charlie is reading this, it illustrates my point about sceptic "evidence". Supertroll regards potential volcanic activity on the West Antarctic peninsula as a significant alternative contributor to climate change, but the significance evaporates on closer inspection.

The climate is always changing and some argue that being a chaotic system, it cannot be modelled. Leaving that aside, the recent changes attributed to AGW lie within the natural variability so it is not possible to determine whether they are due to AGW or not. Furthermore, as shown over at WUWT, the global temperature data is indistinguishable from random data.

The problem with global warming is that the actual warming signal, if such a thing exists, is much smaller than the background noise. It is therefore almost impossible for climate scientists to prove their case. The GHG hypothesis is just that. It has never been proved experimentally and there are papers that argue that it is not supported by physics.

Climate science is not an experimental science. It has to rely on models. These models are very complex. It is true to say that the climate scientists do not understand the fundamentals of their subject. Natural variability has been ignored in favour of the GHG effect. I find this appalling, but it is true.

Global warming has often been described as a religion. It is certainly true that it requires faith because as discussed above, there is no conclusive evidence. The model predictions do not agree with observation and that includes frequency of severe weather, hotspots and humidity as well as temperature. In any other branch of science such models would be discarded as failed. The so called ECS is part of the model output. That too, is meaningless if the model is flawed.

So, is there warming or not? There has been warming since the little ice age and about 2-3mm per year sea level rise for longer than that. The warming increased in the 1930s and 1980s has slowed at other times. It is argued that with GH gases increasing temperatures can only increase too. That is about it.

Global warming is is a matter of faith. Uncertainty is very large and real so we cannot be sure either way.

Schrodinger's Cat

I read your last post and looked for anything I could usefully comment on. I found it so vague that there was no useful entry point.

Could you quantify it. For example, what was that about a WUWT article?

Millar et al was Peer Approved by Climate Science. Entropic Man, Zeke Hausfather and Cowtan etc, are now challenging consensus Climate Science and the IPCC.

"Millar et al. attracted controversy for stating that climate models have shown too much warming in recent decades, even though others (including the IPCC) have said the same thing. Zeke Hausfather disputed this using an adjustment to model outputs developed by Cowtan et al."

EM, if you can quote the heat produced by Krakatoa so accurately, can you quote the heat produced by Tambora, that was sufficient to chill the planet, causing the year without a summer?

You depend on Trenberth's Energy Budget, with or without his missing heat. Is that the heat that appears in the models, but not on this Earth?

EM. You wrote authoritively that volcanism could not be responsible for melting ice in West Antarctica. I asked for proof of this. I also pointed out that melting of basal glacial ice could not be explained by surface changes, now you seem to be questioning the very existence of the volcanoes. You're out of your depth aren't you?

Supertroll

I made two points.

1) West Antarctica is not a place where you would not normally find active volcanoes.

2) Even an active volcano would not significantly affect the amount of ice melt.

The latter point was made using numbers.

Since you are pushing both the existence of these volcanoes and that they are producing significant ice melt, perhaps you can present your evidence.

Where are these volcanoes? How do you know they are active.? How much ice are they melting? As it is, you are asking me to prove an absence.

Don't forget to include links and, if possible, numbers.

Golf Charlie

I despair of you.

A little thought and a quick internet search would tell you that the energy release from Tambora was about 1.4×10^20 Joules. Why ask me for information that you can research for yourself?

That would warm the climate temporarily by about 0.0001C.

The real damage done by Tambora was to release enough aerosols to increase the albedo and reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. THAT was what caused The Year Without A Summer.

Tambora caused a 0.5C drop in temperature, equivalent to a reduction of 1.5×10^24 Joules or 1.85 W/M^2.

Note that the aerosols produced by Tambora had 5000 times more effect than the heat it released.

If Supertroll is looking for significant climatic effects from Antarctic volcanoes he should be looking at their aerosol release, not their heat production.

Oct 2, 2017 at 11:56 PM | Entropic man

Yet despite all this theory, you still cannot consider any mistake by Climate Scientists in programming the Climate models that have been confirmed to be wrong.

That is why politicians, policymakers and the public are despairing of Climate Science.

The subject of antarctic volcanos came from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
Sep 29, 2017 at 9:15 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

Are your figures for the heat output of volcanos as reliable as Climate Science's Computer Modelled Predictions/Projections?

You don't seem interested in saving the "good bits" of Climate Science by finding and rejecting the bad bits. Millar et al has confirmed that there is no need for a panic, so what do you think Trump is going to do?

EM I think you will find that you haven't provided the numbers, all you have done is encourage us to "do the numbers" and we would find "that the volcanoes do not produce enough energy to explain the observed warming in the Antarctic Peninsula".(Sep 29, 2017 at 11:59 PM) or "Do the numbers" (Sep 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM) which you followed up with "I remember similar denier enthusiasm when volcanic activity was discovered under the Thwaites glacier. There were wild claims that all the melting from the glacier was due to volcanoes. In fact, even the most optimistic heat flow calculation showed that it was less than 1%".

I have now repeatedly asked for your sources, and repeatedly you have ignored my requests.

Note also I have stated that volcanoes are a symptom of the presence of larger magma chambers that are in turn symptomatic of areas of significantly higher heat flow. You don't need erupting volcanoes.

Furthermore, you widened the argument to include ice melting at the base of the Thwaites glacier. I then asked you to explain how this could happen by surface temperature changes. Something else you have summarily ignored.

You made the assertions, you provide the proof (and numbers).

EM. "Krakatoa released 10^18 Joules. That is enough heat to melt 3×10^15 grams of ice. That is 3 cubic km".(Oct 2, 2017 at 9:38 PM).

That is enough heat to melt 3 cubic kilometres of ice in a few days during the eruption. Now tell me how much ice could be melted by heat release from Krakatoa's magma chamber over a thousand years, or ten thousand? There are supposedly 91 and counting volcanoes in West Antarctica, implying the presence of multiple magma chambers. There is simply not enough evidence (=numbers) for you to make any definitive statement about the efficacy of geothermal heat to influence ice stability in West Antarctica. If there is a subduction zone beneath West Antarctica, add the energy released by friction as the subducting plate grinds its way beneath the stationary East Antarctica plate. What you are doing is equivalent to calculating the energy release from an earthquake and thinking this is the only energy release from a subducting plate.

I would still appreciate knowing the source of your 1% statement about the Twaites glacier.

Supertroll

The Guardian article jumps from "We have found 91 volcanic cones under the ice" to "active volcanoes" to "dangerous melting" , a stretch I find excessive. There is a volcano called Slemish in Northern Ireland, but I don't expect it to erupt soon. It has been inactive for about 65 million years.

I can't find the original paper online. Can you help?

EM
www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rbingha2/48_2017_Vries.pdf · PDF file

It's 139 volcanoes, 91of which are new.

Sorry EM Slemish Mountain is not a volcano, it's only PART of one - the central plug. I don't see the relevance of this to the Antarctic volcanic field which is still active and associated with an earthquake prone region. You appear to be straw-clutching.

I find your over-reliance of dubious numbers of suspicious provenance a bit sad,

Oct 3, 2017 at 10:42 AM | Radical Rodent

For a "Science" to depend on dubious numbers, that are then multiplied by factors of suspicious provenance, is scary.

If the maths depends on a slight upsetting of the delicate balance of Trenberth's Energy Budget, and fractions of 1 percent of CO2 are significant, and these fractions of 1 percent of CO2 can't explain the LIA or MWP, then other factors are at play.

Volcanic activity is known to effect the climate. The presence of molten rock near the surface, especially in areas/extents not known about 20+ years ago, must be significant in terms of fractions of 1 percent, as are various other factors highlighted in this thread, but dismissed by Climate Science.

Even the "warming" that Climate Science claims to have observed, falls far short of the warming programmed into Climate Science's own models.

Climate Science set its target as CO2 or bust. Climate Science is going bust, because it refuses to consider other factors.