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?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,961 other subscribers
A disturbing view of Gubment Motors
Chevy Recalls Cruze After A Steering Wheel Falls Off.
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?
The Vostok graphs show 12C increase from 200-280 ppm.
then that’s a fail for CO2
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.
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?
Temperatures have gone down over the last decade. Climate sensitivity must be negative ;^)
I’ve little faith in a precise temp derived without
thermometersreal time measurements, especially temps derived by looking at ice cores.
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.
The hysterical reaction of alarmists is totally inappropriate given a very small increase in temperature.
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.
Jim, I think someone figured out it’s less than .02
Can’t remember now where I saw that, I’ll look
Scott- “1.9 C/doubling of CO2.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
“the average coal plant releases 100 times more annual radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.”
Mike on that note….Monbiot just did a U-turn on nuclear
The world as we know it is doing a flip flop…
George Monbiot’s own science bites him in the rear…..
….and he has an epiphany over it
Only one solution-back to the cave. Civilization is dirty and evil!!
Steve, one of my posts is pulling a James….
…look in the spam bot for me a drag it out if you can
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.