A Disturbing View Of Climate Sensitivity

CO2 has gone way up over the last century, while temperature has done almost nothing (a little over half a degree.) This indicates climate sensitivity close to zero. But why let actual observation supersede the unverified output of a grossly deficient computer model?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to A Disturbing View Of Climate Sensitivity

  1. MikeTheDenier says:

    A disturbing view of Gubment Motors

    Chevy Recalls Cruze After A Steering Wheel Falls Off.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/04/10/chevy-recalls-cruze-after-a-steering-wheel-falls-off/?mod=google_news_blog

  2. Scott says:

    So if it’s warmed 0.5 C and if the CO2 changed from 300 to 390 ppm during that time, that indicates a climate sensitivity of 1.9 C/doubling of CO2. Doesn’t that still imply positive feedbacks?

    -Scott

    • The Vostok graphs show 12C increase from 200-280 ppm.

      • Latitude says:

        then that’s a fail for CO2

      • W F Lenihan says:

        Is there any research into the questions at what point does a lower concentration of CO2 become dangerous, and at what point does the concentration become optimal? If we don’t have answers to these questions, the debate about climate change from increased GHGs seems absurd.

    • Scott says:

      But that’s not what this post is about. Given only the timescale you mentioned above, you still arrive at a scary number. If it included Latitude’s addition below, then it’d be a much stronger argument.

      This is why the hockey stick is so nefarious…it paints the past as a constant so that the last 100 or so years could be used solely be itself to arrive at a big climate sensitivity.

      My question is this…with the above analysis climate sensitivity is ~2 C/doubling…so why does the scientific community insist on 3 C/doubling? I know they try to use volcanoes as a justification…but doesn’t the volcano number come from modeling/assumptions because the dT is measurable but we can’t measure the forcing itself well, right?

      -Scott

  3. Latitude says:

    If you go back to 1700, you get the exact same “slope” as we have right now.

    That slope was normal.

    If you put that normal slope over today’s slope, you see that CO2 hasn’t changed a thing.

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    The hysterical reaction of alarmists is totally inappropriate given a very small increase in temperature.

    • Jimbo says:

      And at least some of that rise in temperature has been accepted by the IPCC as being from natural variation. So we have less than half a degree.

  5. chris y says:

    Scott- “1.9 C/doubling of CO2.”

    Seems high.

    Delta(T) = a log(10)(C1/C0), or Delta(T) = b ln (C1/C0)
    For delta(T)=0.5 C with C1/C0=390/300, we solve to get a = 4.4 or b = 1.9.

    Then, we can predict for doubling CO2 that Delta(T) = 4.4 log(10) (600/300) = 1.3 degrees C.

    Now, half of the 0.5 C surface warming is demonstrably due to UHI contamination. So actually, a = 2.2
    Then, Delta(T) = 2.2 log(10) (600/300) = 0.66 C

    This is close to Idso’s estimate of 0.1 C/W/m^2, which with 3.7 W/m^2 for doubled CO2, gives about 0.4 C.

    So we have overall negative climate feedback (most likely cloud feedbacks as described by Lindzen and Spencer) as Gaia’s response to a change in forcing up or down.

    • suyts says:

      I like the math, but that’s if and only if CO2 was the primary driver of the modest 0.25 C increase (T – UHI). And, as noted warming triggers a negative response feedback, or cooling if you will, as would be expected from an equilibrium seeking object. So, the net effect will be negligible.

    • Scott says:

      Aargh, I got b=1.9 then got distracted, saw that on my calculator a min or two later and forgot I wasn’t done with the calculations. 😦 Thanks for catching my error.

      So ignoring UHI, natural variation, and long-term natural warming, this appears to be a near-zero feedback system. (Yes, I do think the above make the result a somewhat negative feedback). 1 C/doubling will not end up being a major problem, so the warmists have to have it higher. So again, where the heck does the assumed 3 C/doubling feedback come from?

      -Scott

  6. Latitude says:

    That graph is also an argument for CO2 cooling….

    This is the only time that a spike/peak has flattened out.

    Which would be a good argument for CO2 keeping temperatures from rising as high as they have before.

  7. MikeTheDenier says:

    Wow. Enviro-freaks will stop at nothing until we’re back in the dark ages…

    Nuclear – BAD BAD BAD
    Coal – BAD BAD BAD
    Hydro (Dams) BAD BAD BAD

    Now…… Natural Gas – BAD BAD BAD

    Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/business/energy-environment/12gas.html?partner=yahoofinance

  8. Andy Weiss says:

    Only one solution-back to the cave. Civilization is dirty and evil!!

  9. Latitude says:

    Steve, one of my posts is pulling a James….

    …look in the spam bot for me a drag it out if you can

  10. Hal says:

    A statistician once said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

    For climate models the first part of that statement is true, but so far I have seen none that are truthful, let alone useful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s