Friday, March 30, 2018

                                       CLIMATE  WARS  TEST

Game over   WUWT  / 

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Skeptics 1, Fanatics 0. That’s the final score...
 let me make it plain that my approach is to accept – for the sake of argument only – that everything in official climatology is true except where we have discovered errors. 

By this acceptance solum ad argumentum, we minimize the scope for futile objections that avoid the main point, and we focus the discussion on the grave errors we have found...

All definitions except that of temperature feedback are mainstream... 
Models do not implement feedback math explicitly. 
  •  climatology has not hitherto appreciated that the right-hand form of each equation is permissible
Input variables
Input variables are from official sources.
Mid-range industrial-era Charney sensitivityNow for the simplest proof of small Charney sensitivity.Net industrial-era manmade forcing to 2011 was 2.29 W m–2, implying industrial-era reference warming 2.29 / 3.2 = 0.72 K...That’s it. Charney sensitivity is less than half of the 3.3 K mid-range estimate in the CMIP3 and CMIP5 general-circulation models, distorted as they are by the long-standing misallocation of all 33 K of the difference between today’s temperature and emission temperature to greenhouse-gas forcings and consequent feedbacks.
Mid-range pre-industrial Charney sensitivity
To show how official climatology’s grave error arose, we shall study how it has been apportioning that 33 K difference between today’s temperature and emission temperature.
Lacis (2010) estimated albedo without greenhouse gases as 0.418, implying emission temperature [1364.625(1 – 0.418) / (4σ)]0.25 = 243.26 K...
Our corrected method finds transient-sensitivity f a lot less that Lacis’ 0.75. It is just 0.123... In practice, ice-melt would steadily reduce the ice-covered surface area, reducing the surface-albedo feedback.
 [ WATER  MELTS AT  243.26 K ?--- WHO KNEW ? ]
Certainty about uncertainties
What of the uncertainties in our result? Some of the official input values on which we have relied are subject to quite wide error margins... the interval of plausible sensitivities is nothing like as broad as the official interval, which I shall now demonstrate to be a hilarious fiction.
I shall let Rud Istvan have the last word:
“This is not coincidental. The ‘best’ Charney sensitivity, whether calculated using the energy budget, or observed v. modeled via Bode’s feedback fraction f, is half of the ‘best estimate’ in IPCC (2007). I agree with Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. It’s game over.”