Comments
Climate Models Support Climate Models
Another paper from the virtual world, published in Nature (surprise!), billed as the ‘definitive’ link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming in the PR from Concordia University (where!?).
Nature: Vol 459 | 11 June 2009 | doi:10.1038/nature08047
The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions p829
Climate sensitivity models may inaccurately characterize the full Earth system response, as they ignore changes in the carbon cycle, aerosols, land use and land cover. A combination of a simplified climate model, a range of simulations from a recent model intercomparison and historical constraints now show that, independent of the timing of emissions or the atmospheric concentration of CO2, emitting a trillion tonnes of carbon will cause global warming of 1.0 to 2.1 degrees Celsius.
H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld
Meanwhile, in the real world we’re +0.04C for 1979 to May 2009 in the lower atmosphere.
Bob Tisdale observes:
Paul, in the press release for Matthew et al (2009)…
http://news.concordia.ca/main_story/014941.shtml?referID=fs_tab_sidebar
they state, “These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.”
I ran some quick calculations, and the “Matthews Multiplier” indicates that co2 accounts for a little more than half (54%) of the global temperature rise (based on linear trends) since 1979, which is the start year of the MSU TLT data.
But CO2, according to the NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX, represents approximately 63% of the AGGI.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
If the “Matthews Multiplier” was correct, which it’s not, then all AGG would be responsible for 85% of the warming since 1979 and that’s a bit difficult to fathom.
Why?
By removing the impacts of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Volcanic Aerosols from global SST anomaly data (1981 to present), the trend in global SST anomalies since 1981 drops by 62%.
Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/impact-of-north-atlantic-and-volcanic.html
For confirmation of the impact of the AMO on global temperatures, they should’ve checked with the Team at RealClimate who write about the AMO, “This pattern is believed to describe…SOME, BUT NOT ALL, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century.”
If they were to add the immediate impacts of ENSO, that would tweak the trend more. And if they’d studied the process of reemergence, they’d have discovered that global oceans integrate the effects of ENSO. Removing that would lower the global SST rise since 1981 yet again.
I think Matthews et al need to fix their climate models.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Paul, in the press release for Matthew et al (2009)…
http://news.concordia.ca/main_story/014941.shtml?referID=fs_tab_sidebar
they state, “These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.”
I ran some quick calculations, and the “Matthews Multiplier” indicates that co2 accounts for a little more than half (54%) of the global temperature rise (based on linear trends) since 1979, which is the start year of the MSU TLT data.
But CO2, according to the NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX, represents approximately 63% of the AGGI.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
If the “Matthews Multiplier” was correct, which it’s not, then all AGG would be responsible for 85% of the warming since 1979 and that’s a bit difficult to fathom.
Why?
By removing the impacts of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Volcanic Aerosols from global SST anomaly data (1981 to present), the trend in global SST anomalies since 1981 drops by 62%.
Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/impact-of-north-atlantic-and-volcanic.html
For confirmation of the impact of the AMO on global temperatures, they should’ve checked with the Team at RealClimate who write about the AMO, “This pattern is believed to describe…SOME, BUT NOT ALL, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century.”
If they were to add the immediate impacts of ENSO, that would tweak the trend more. And if they’d studied the process of reemergence, they’d have discovered that global oceans integrate the effects of ENSO. Removing that would lower the global SST rise since 1981 yet again.
I think Matthews et al need to fix their climate models.
June 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Thanks Bob – added to post above.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
There are so many problems with this paper I can’t believe it was published! Holy Cow, they didn’t even get the memo that emissions =/ concentrations! Wow…