Understanding The Scientific View Of Climate Sensitivity

Global temperature shows no correlation with CO2, so scientists make up some crap about heat hiding in the Pacific Atlantic Ocean

ScreenHunter_2280 Aug. 24 11.01

What is completely clear in paleo data, is that the cart is pulling the horse – and the horse closely follows the movement of the cart about 800 years later.

ScreenHunter_2278 Aug. 24 10.29

About stevengoddard

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

36 Responses to Understanding The Scientific View Of Climate Sensitivity

  1. squid2112 says:

    Global temperature shows no correlation with CO2…

    Exactly!

    Why? .. I’m glad you asked. Simply put, it is because there is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect”. Case Closed.

    • I disagree.
      CO2 LW absorption is nearly saturated and overlaps with water, so adding more CO2 has little effect.

      • Robert of Ottawa says:

        Quite so Steven. And another thing, bring on the warming, vast tracts of Canada and Russia will become inhabitable and open for agriculture.

        Mind you, if there is another ice age, vast tracts of continental shelves will become inhabitable and open for agriculture.

        We can’t lose! 🙂

      • There is no greenhouse effect between 0.04% CO2 (in Earth’s atmosphere) and 96.5% (in Venus’s atmosphere). It is utterly foolish to think the greenhouse effect exists only between 0.0% (or actually, the “natural, pre-industrial” level of 0.028%) and 0.04% atmospheric concentration. You have pointed this out yourself, calling that 0.01% difference a “0.0001 mole fraction difference”, and deriding those who think it has had any real, noticeable effect on global mean temperature. And if CO2 is “nearly saturated”, it is by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from the planetary surface.

  2. RMB says:

    This nonsense will never be put to rest until people grasp the simple fact that you cannot put heat from the atmosphere by convection through the surface of water. It is completely blocked by surface tension.There are only two ways of getting heat through the surface of water, radiation or conduction not convection. Co2 is completely harmless and AGW is bunkum.

    • The atmosphere radiates downwards

      • Herve D says:

        You are all wrong: The missing 18-yera-long-pause heta is stored in the depths of the Sea of Tranquility (on the Moon).

        • nielszoo says:

          I get it now. NASA is adjusting all the post ’69 temps up to hide the fact that they faked the manned part of the moon landing to cover up all those other rockets moving heat up to Mare Tranquillitatis from the Pacific Ocean. They would have gotten away with it if Obama hadn’t eliminated the “Space” part of NASA (by having them make Muslims feel better instead of launching stuff into space) so they couldn’t move the rest of the Atlantic heat and they got caught with it.</sarc>

      • squid2112 says:

        The atmosphere radiates downwards

        And upwards, and sidewards, and all aroundwards. This quote is completely meaningless. It is like saying “water is wet”. So what?

        A cooler object CANNOT (and I cannot stress this enough) .. CANNOT make a warmer object warmer still.

        In terms of CO2, it re-radiates mostly at approximately 14.5u, which correlates to approximately -80C … So thermal radiation of -80C is going to warm what? Perhaps the coldest spots in Antarctica. But in any case, you are still talking thermal dispersion. So-called “back radiation” cannot add additional energy to the system. You cannot have a perpetual mobile. The “greenhouse effect”, as described by AGW proponents (all half dozen versions) is NOT possible. Our atmosphere acts to cool our planet, not warm it. There is no planet in our solar system that exhibits a “greenhouse effect”, no matter the atmospheric concentration.

    • Robert of Ottawa says:

      You ignore evaportaion

  3. gregole says:

    As the saying goes, “Nothing ruins the truth like stretching it” the Warmunists have destroyed their narrative through exaggeration. CO2 at the levels we see are simply swamped by water-vapor. CO2, the Man-Made kind, that tiny added margin, might help plants grow, but drive earth’s temperature? I think not.

  4. john burns says:

    Interestingly the English are now worried that the Icelandic volcano will erupt and cause a cooling of the British Isles. But given the extreme heating due to global warming due to CO2 and their imaginations, they should be delighted at the prospect . . . though perhaps they were hoping to eliminate the need for heating their homes this winter? Perhaps the climate change potential of imagination has been seriously underestimated by climate scientists. Worth looking into I would think.

    • bit chilly says:

      the department of energy and climate change in the uk were indeed hoping this winters temperature would be so low energy demands would be well below normal like last winter,particularly as our ageing power plants and lack of investment in reliable power generation mean we are well below capacity should we have what would be termed as a typical cold british winter.

      unfortunately it appears that we are now about to experience a cold winter as the gulf stream has slowed in line with oceanic cycles heading into the negative phase,it is highly likely there will be planned power outages this winter due to the aforementioned lack of capacity. i would not like to be in ed daveys shoes in a few months time.

  5. QV says:

    Off topic but:
    Coldest August night on record in N. Ireland last night.
    Previous low was 1964 but it doesn’t say which day that was.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28916894
    Don’t know how long the records go back.

  6. Eric Simpson says:

    I’m going to dust off this key video that graphically shows that 800 year CO2 lag. It’s true that the paleo data, and contrary to the ipcc and Al Gore’s contentions, shows that there is no evidence at all that CO2 causes temperatures to change. That’s the evidence. But for some reason the people for the most part are ignoring this. So please help spread the word about this must see video:

  7. They are saying the 800 year lag doesn’t apply to modern warming. Anthropogenic (refined) CO2 is different from natural CO2 because natural CO2 is organic and this CO2 is refined and processed.

    • tom0mason says:

      And if we look back 800-1000 years from today it’s the Medieval Warm Period.
      How inconvenient.

    • squid2112 says:

      @Morgan,

      Hahahaha … I’ve heard that argument … in fact, I had my father once trying to convince me that “man made” CO2 somehow acted different than any other CO2. Some of the most absurd crap I think I have ever heard.

  8. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    The horse seems confused he just doesn’t understand the new math!

  9. daveandrews723 says:

    Can somebody give me a layman’s explanation, or a citation, for why CO2 lags temps by 800 years? That video does not explain the why, just as Gore did not explain his “why”.

  10. Chewer says:

    The definition of our atmosphere (s) is not an easy medium to qualify and quantify in absolute terms in constituents and mixing patterns.
    The time between MFE’s (magnetic field excursions) MFR’s (magnetic field reversals) combined with the solar-cycle max-max/min-min’s, Milankovitch cycles, platonic cycles (rifts, volcanic activity) and planetary core max-min cycles, all contribute to the temperature and climate changes affecting the main driver, which is of course ocean heat content.
    Dwelling on man-made C02 is for the neurotic and sometimes psychotic minds….

  11. Eliza says:

    SG love this posting LOL

  12. Okie says:

    Instead of “Where’s Waldo” we need “Where’s Warming”; perhaps kids can at least learn some geography as they search for the phantom warming.

  13. Robertv says:

    Downhill the cart could hypothetically pull the horse. Uphill is a completely different story.

  14. B. A. Stockwell says:

    I love your posts, Steve. They keep me up to date: re: the idiocy of much of the science in today’s world. Also, you draw so many intelligent, good humored commenting people who actually do understand the science. They are literate, too, and literacy is rare in society now.
    Many must be older, like I am, and received their basic education before our educational system was “dumbed” down.

  15. Brian H says:

    Dumber is fairer and more equal, doncha know? Everyone can achieve it, if they try. Or don’t try. Or whatever.

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