“Seismic Shift” In Climate Science… IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate “Far Too High”…”In A Free Fall”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

There’s brand new published, peer-reviewed literature out showing that CO2’s impact on global warming is far less than what was once previously suggested. Time to end the climate hype.

Of course some alarmism-addicted readers will insist that we ignore these findings, and blindly accept the alarmist scenarios.

CO2 getting pushed aside as a climate driver by natural climate factors like solar activity. Photo: NASA, public domain

At Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s Die kalte Sonne site, the two experts have reviewed the recent literature on CO2’s ability to warm the globe, which we call CO2 climate sensitivity. Their conclusion: estimations of CO2 climate sensitivity are “in a free-fall”.
===================================================

CO2-climate sensitivity in a free-fall: New from the scientific literature

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Numerous new studies show that the previously assumed estimate value used by the IPCC of 3.0°C warming per doubling of CO2 is far too high. In 2013 a publication by von Otto et al. suggested 2.0°C, a thunderbolt. […] Today again we have a collection of newly published results that vary over a broad range in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the short-term Transient Climate Response (TCR). The usually given quoted values are the ECS values.

ECS: Equilibrium climate sensitivity

Up to 6°C Proistosescu & Huybers 2017
Press release here; A truly alarm-fraught paper that is trying to be the quoted in the 6th IPCC report and to drive the mean value of all studies upwards. Nic Lewis dismantled the paper in detail at Climate Audit.

3,7°C  Brown & Caldeira 2017
This one as well is an upper range outlier. It draws the research funding.

2,8°C Cox et al. 2018; limitation to 2.2-3.4°C
Press release here. The German press reported on this energetically: FAZ, Tagesspiegel, Spektrum

1,79°C Mauritsen & Pincus 2017
Also see post here at Die kalte Sonne.

1,4°C Orssengo 2018

1,3°C Spencer 2018
Scenario: only 70% of the warming of the past 150 years is anthropogenic. The possible climate impact by the sun in most calculations of climate sensitivity is not included at all.

By comparison in our ‘Die kalte Sonne’ book we present a 1.5°C scenario. That’s in the lower range of the IPCC AR5 report, 1.5-4.5°C.

TCR: Transient Climate Response

1.32 °C Mauritsen & Pincus 2017
See Die kalte-Sonne post here.

1.29°C Bosse 2017

1.10°C Christy & McNider 2017
See report at WUWT.

By comparison: the TCR average of all climate models in the IPCC AR5 report was 2.31°C.

“Seismic shift”

All this points to a seismic shift in the understanding of CO2 climate sensitivity in the now being drafted 6th IPCC Report.

The ‘best estimated value’ will in any case move considerably downward. That of course is already causing a lot of bellyaching among the climate warriors, and so the world is preparing in advance for the changes. For example Knutti et al. 2017 wrote in Nature Geoscience, that in any case greenhouse gas emissions will have to limited, no matter if the CO2 climate sensitivity value is possibly lower:

Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity
[…] Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end.”

Here the authors are not mentioning that values at the lower end of the spectrum represent a less dramatic situation than a value at the higher end of the spectrum, which probably would have really supported a climate catastrophe.

The time for justification has already started. Also just a few months ago Millar et al. 2017 had to admit that the climate models indeed had been running much too hot and that the 1.5°C target can be reached as well with a tripling of CO2 emissions.  

Others, however, simply just do not want to accept the new reality. A team led by Kate Marvel (among them also the known climate activist Gavin Schmidt) claimed in February, 2018, in the Geophysical Research Letters that the real temperature trend of the last decades are not suitable for calculating CO2 climate sensitivity. Much more correct would be the theoretical computer simulations. This left some speechless. Nic Lewis analyzed the paper and discovered a number of problems.

Let the climate sensitivity bazar open!

The run-up to the IPCC 6th Report is already seeing much wrangling. Both sides are going full throttle in the effort of getting their view documented for future quoting. Now the most absurd publications can make their way through if peer-reviewers with similar views can be found.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

97 responses to ““Seismic Shift” In Climate Science… IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate “Far Too High”…”In A Free Fall””

  1. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

    RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.

    But with such great personal, professional and capital investment in this failed premise, like the man with only a hammer, assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.

    Over 9,100 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.

    Step right up, bring science, I did.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE (LinkedIn)

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/19972-Space-Hot-or-Cold-and-RGHE

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T

    1. Kenneth Richard

      And another one, posthumously, from meteorologist Dr. William Gray and reviewed by three scientist peers…
      —–
      Gray, 2018
      https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf
      “[T]he globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.”
      —–
      80 more Low Sensitivity papers found here.

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “…assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”

      That’s AGW theory in a nutshell.

  2. Interested parties

    Dear Nicholas, I read one of your articles on the writer beat website but it was a bit hard to follow and seemed kind of incoherent. Could you polish your ideas up a bit and make them a little easier to digest with some more organized writing? Maybe include some figures of your own? You could really reach a broader audience that way, if that is your goal.

  3. SebastianH

    Of course some alarmism-addicted readers will insist that we ignore these findings, and blindly accept the alarmist scenarios.

    You are blindly accepting whatever those Kaltesonne guys write, but they are right with one thing: “Da scheinen auch die absurdesten Publikationen jetzt durchzukommen, wenn Gutachter mit ähnlicher Gesinnung gefunden werden können.”

    All this nonsense on the skeptic side invites commentators like Nicholas Schroeder above to post their nonsense too. And thus a wave of good feeling nonsense travels through your bubble and the whole topic has become even more stupid 😉

    Please search Google Scholar for “climate sensitivity” (papers past 2018) and look through the hundreds of papers on this topic. Here are a few examples:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD027885/full (1K higher than previously thought)

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450 (probability of ECS being less than 1.5 degrees less than 3%)

    https://eartharxiv.org/4et67/ (also at the high side of the IPCC range)

    And so on … that’s just the first page.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      All this nonsense on the skeptic side invites commentators like Nicholas Schroeder above to post their nonsense too. And thus a wave of good feeling nonsense travels through your bubble and the whole topic has become even more stupid

      SebastianH has just debunked Nicholas Schroeder, as well as all the other scientists who do not find climate sensitivity to CO2 to be harrowingly high. How? He very substantively called what they wrote “nonsense” and “stupid”.

      1. SebastianH

        So you never write words like “debunked” … yeah, right.

        Why would we need to debunk someone’s theories if he is attacking the 33K figure (like you do so often)? We all know that this is just a useful visualization and not the temperature difference between the Earth today and a hypothetical Earth without an atmosphere.

        And then of course he writes the atmosphere cools the planet. Need anything else? It’s stupid and you are giving this stuff a platform.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          So you never write words like “debunked” … yeah, right.

          I actively try to avoid using absolutist language like that, yes. Words like always, never, proved… signify certainty, and maintaining a position of certainty reduces open-mindedness. That’s why I regularly read blogs like SkepticalScience and RealClimate — I try to stay up to speed with what both sides are saying. After all, I used to be on your side of the aisle until about 2009/10, or whenever the ClimateGate e-mail scandal broke. My skepticism grew from there.

          Why would we need to debunk someone’s theories if he is attacking the 33K figure

          No, you don’t have to debunk anything. Just go right on ahead and believe what you want to believe about CO2’s capacity to heat up the oceans and contribute 7.2 k of the 33 K water-heating greenhouse effect.

          1. SebastianH

            open-mindedness

            Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean you have to invite nonsense into your mind, does it?

            No, you don’t have to debunk anything. Just go right on ahead and believe what you want to believe about CO2’s capacity to heat up the oceans and contribute 7.2 k of the 33 K water-heating greenhouse effect.
            I see, so your reply didn’t mean that you feel it needs an elaborated scientific text to “debunk” such claims as made by the first commentator and that I should provide that instead of just writing that it is nonsense?

            Keep believing it is gravity/pressure and that the GHE not exists, the world is not warming, all data is fake and tree ring proxies are to be trusted when they show a cooling where instrumental records show warming. There is no real 33K greenhouse effect, Kenneth. That’s the just the baseline. You just have to look at the Moon and should realize that an Earth without an atmosphere would not be as warm as 255K on average. Arguing against the 33K figure is futile, it’s barking at the wrong tree.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean you have to invite nonsense into your mind, does it?

            Calling views contrary to your own “nonsense” is not substantive. There are many scientists who question the views you espouse about anthropogenic CO2 emissions controlling water temperatures in the deep ocean. The climate models continue to fail. When models fail, it’s time to look for alternatives.

            so your reply didn’t mean that you feel it needs an elaborated scientific text to “debunk” such claims as made by the first commentator

            I don’t think that calling what someone writes “nonsense” or “stupid” qualifies as a substantive “debunking”. Apparently you do. That’s what was meant by my reply.

            Keep believing it is gravity/pressure and that the GHE not exists

            I haven’t written that I think the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. I have written that I haven’t (nor have you or anyone else — it’s never been observed or measured) found evidence that varying CO2 concentrations over water bodies causes heating or cooling of those water bodies. Considering the oceans are where 93% of the planet’s heat energy resides, and just 1% is in the atmosphere, CO2’s capacity to heat up water is the critical factor in determining the plausibility of greenhouse theory. And, again, we don’t have that real-world evidence. I need more evidence. I’ll also need evidence from the paleoclimate and from current climate modeling that what is claimed is repeatable and accurately predictive. It’s neither. So I’ll continue searching…since the science isn’t settled.

          3. SebastianH

            There are many scientists who question the views you espouse about anthropogenic CO2 emissions controlling water temperatures in the deep ocean

            Is that so? Then please filter those out that are nonsense, when you feature them. As a skeptic that should be relatively easy, right?

            The climate models continue to fail. When models fail, it’s time to look for alternatives.

            They are fine as they are. https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/ (can always be improved though, but why you guys imagine that they must be completely wrong and the mechanisms must be completely different to what we know and expect from physics, is beyond me.

            I don’t think that calling what someone writes “nonsense” or “stupid” qualifies as a substantive “debunking”. Apparently you do.

            See, i wasn’t debunking anything, so I don’t think that. You mentioned it. So again, why would a claim that the atmosphere actually cools the planet need debunking? Why even react when someone goes against the 33K thought experiment that’s a useful baseline and nothing more?

            I haven’t written that I think the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist.

            You imply it everytime you compare other planets to Earth and bring up papers that make surface temperatures “work” without the GHE.

            Considering the oceans are where 93% of the planet’s heat energy resides, and just 1% is in the atmosphere, CO2’s capacity to heat up water is the critical factor in determining the plausibility of greenhouse theory.

            So, with the Sun weakening, what will you come up with to explain a continued increasing heat content? Would that be enough “evidence”? Or will you claim the data is fake instead?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            They [models] are fine as they are.

            So then why did 114 of 117 climate models (97%) fail to simulate the 1993-2013 temperature trends accurately? Where else in science does a 97% failure rate mean that the models underlying the failure are “fine as they are”?

            http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/climate/overestimated%20warming.pdf
            “[W]e considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few [3 of 117] simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).”

            Coats and Karnauskas, 2017
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074622/abstract
            None of the 83 simulations [a 100% failure rate] have a positive trend in the SST gradient, a strengthening of the climatological SST gradient with more warming in the western than eastern tropical Pacific, as large as the mean trend across the five observational data sets. If the observed trends are anthropogenically forced, this discrepancy suggests that state-of-the-art climate models are not capturing the observed response of the tropical Pacific to anthropogenic forcing, with serious implications for confidence in future climate projections. … [C]onfident validation of anthropogenic SST gradient trends in climate models will require further emergence of anthropogenic trends. Regardless, the differences in SST gradient trends between climate models and observational data sets are concerning and motivate the need for process-level validation of the atmosphere-ocean dynamics relevant to climate change in the tropical Pacific.”

            So again, why would a claim that the atmosphere actually cools the planet need debunking?

            It does not appear that he wrote that the atmosphere cools the planet. Instead, he writes the opposite. So did you (a) misunderstand what he wrote, (b) fail to read more than a few passages and thus made the assumption based on limited information, or (c) just make it up?

            http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C-R1-052617
            “The surface of the earth is warm because the atmosphere provides an insulating blanket, a thermal resistance, no different from the insulation in the ceiling and walls of a house with the temperature differential determined per the equation Q = U * A * dT, simple to verify and demonstrate. (Explains why 250 km thick atmosphere of Venus with twice the irradiance heats surface bigly compared to earth.)”

          5. AndyG55

            Poor seb, wasting so much time on EMPTY, ZERO-SCIENCE ATTENTION-SEEKING rants.

            So funny that you just keep DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPID.

            But its all you have left isn’t it, seb.

            “continued increasing heat content?”

            STILL with the BS.

            Now its being measured (somewhat) rather than modelled like before 2003.

            OHC IS NOT INCREASING.

            https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

          6. AndyG55

            “You imply it every time “

            Poor seb, EVERY TIME you RUN AWAY from producing any empirical science showing atmospheric CO2 warming of oceans or atmosphere, or anythimg…

            … you imply that YOU KNOW THAT IT DOESN’T !

          7. SebastianH

            I am a bit impressed how you are able to dig this stuff up and present it as your one truth here.

            The trend of the CMIP5 models is not 0.30 C per decade. Maybe if you include all scenarios? But what would a comparison between that and the instrumental record mean? Nothing.

            It does not appear that he wrote that the atmosphere cools the planet.

            “The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.”

            And then there is:
            “The average solar constant is 1,368 W/m^2 with an S-B BB temperature of 390 K or 17 C higher than the boiling point of water under sea level atmospheric pressure”
            or
            “a theoretical temperature calculation 100 km away that cannot even be measured” (the 255 K figure, it has been measured, it’s easy to measure).

            Sorry, that whole thing you just linked to is a farce. And if you really would know your stuff and be a skeptic, you would immediately recognize that. But instead you somehow support that nonsense. Whatever makes you happy, I guess. Bigly!

          8. Kenneth Richard

            The trend of the CMIP5 models is not 0.30 C per decade.

            I guess we’ll just have to allow you to make up your own facts, then.

            SebastianH cites: “The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.”

            Do you know what albedo is, SebastianH? Does increasing albedo heat or cool the Earth? So yes, you just made up a claim based on a misrepresentation and/or a failure to read what he actually wrote.

            But instead you somehow support that nonsense.

            No, I don’t. You have this habit of assuming what I support and what I don’t support…and getting it wrong just about every time.

            I refuse to spend any more time arguing the merits of what someone else wrote. I didn’t even read what he wrote in the first place. I didn’t defend what he wrote in the first place. All I did was point out that calling scientists’ low estimates of climate sensitivity “nonsense” is not a rebuttal.

            “All this nonsense [about low climate sensitivity] on the skeptic side invites commentators like Nicholas Schroeder above to post their nonsense too.”

            Nor does it “debunk” what they wrote. That’s mostly what your posts here are about. If you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid and you believe in nonsense. Sorry, but that “argument” just isn’t substantive.

          9. SebastianH

            AndyG55:

            OHC IS NOT INCREASING.

            https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

            Stop using old data …
            https://imgur.com/a/1KjPi

            Kenneth:

            Do you know what albedo is, SebastianH? Does increasing albedo heat or cool the Earth? So yes, you just made up a claim based on a misrepresentation and/or a failure to read what he actually wrote.

            You are ignoring the other word in the sentence then? You said you didn’t read what he writes, how could you then even claim I failed to read what he actually wrote? I know what he actually wrote, he links to it. It’s nonsense.

            No, I don’t. You have this habit of assuming what I support and what I don’t support…and getting it wrong just about every time.

            It’s enough to watch you defend something. You are defending this and low ECS papers. That’s one form of support.

            All I did was point out that calling scientists’ low estimates of climate sensitivity “nonsense” is not a rebuttal.

            I did not write a rebuttal here. I just pointed out that the overhelming majority of papers come to the conclusion that ECS could be higher than we thought. Nothing more.

            If you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid and you believe in nonsense. Sorry, but that “argument” just isn’t substantive.

            I don’t care if you or anyone agrees with me, just don’t act like anything remotely capable of supporting your view is always correct and anything else is made up. Show some skepticism, you are skeptics, aren’t you?

            Where is the substance in believing anything blindly (or at least not crictically questioning its merrits) that could support your point of view?

        2. AndyG55

          “And then of course he writes the atmosphere cools the planet. “

          So you DENY basic observational data, hey seb.

          Heat transfer is invariably NET upwards from the surface.

          Next you will be saying something REALLY, REALLY DUMB ,..

          … like “the atmosphere is a blanket.” !!

          That would HILARIOUS. 🙂

          1. AndyG55

            Fix needed

            “Heat transfer is invariably NET upwards from the surface.”

            Should read….

            Heat transfer BY THE ATMOSPHERE is invariably NET upwards from the surface.

    2. AndyG55

      “You are blindly accepting…. blahhhh” “

      ROFLOMAO..

      You know that you cannot produce one single piece of empirical science showing that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has ANY WARMING EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER. !!

      Seb, YOU are the one “BLINDLY ACCEPTING” the AGW mantra, backed by … NOTHING !!

      It is EMPTY !!

      Your AGW cult religion is a LOAD OF NON-SCIENCE NONSENSE..

      1. tom0mason

        That because people can not think logically. What is the basic premise of the IPCC? It is this —

        Keeping it simple for the cAGW advocates around —

        Consider we have 10,000 particles (molecules and atoms if you must) of normal air. Within this air there are 3 CO2 particles. Sun shines on them and everyone is happy. 🙂
        We now change things slightly —
        We still have 10,000 particles (molecules and atoms if you must) of normal air but now we have 4 particles of CO2 in there, the sun shines on them, and PAP!! suddenly for some weird and dumb reason people believe this amount of CO2 will now start to overheat the rest of the air! 🙁

        Sensible? :-\
        Of course not but that is the simple implication of the IPCC assertion that 280ppm to 300 ppm CO2 is OK but over 400ppm is not.

        And if this nonflammable gas ever gets to 8 CO2 particles in 10,000 then the world will burn! (say the cAGW lunatics).

        1. SebastianH

          Are you familiar with potassium cyanide? Lethal at a dose of 200-300 mg.

          That’s about 2 mg/kg body weight or for 10000 body “molecules” 0.02 poison “molecules” are enough to kill you. Do you also think of this being not sensible? Should you ignore it when your potassium cyanide levels increase from 10 in 10000000 (10 million) to 15 in 100000000 (10 million)? Do you think that change wouldn’t do anything to you?

          1. AndyG55

            Yet another IGNORANT analogy from seb.

            GROW UP, and stop your childish anti-science idiocy.

            CO2 is not dangerous to humans even at concentrations many time the current atmospheric level. We breathe out 40,000 ppm. !!

            CO2 DOES NOT cause any warming of oceans, atmosphere or anything,…

            … if you have empirical data that proves it does…

            …put up or stop your mindless yapping.

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @Andy

            LOL – Seb is at it again with his stupid analogies, I see.

            Problem is, he has to campare his fantasy which he has no data for to a totally unrelated reality that we do. In other words, he has just effectively admitted that he’s got nothing.

            So sad.

          3. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            PS – Joe Bastardi here explains the connection between CO2 and climate. As best we can tell, there ain’t one.
            https://patriotpost.us/opinion/54363-can-we-see-mans-imprint-on-recent-extreme-weather

          4. John Brown

            SebH not know difference chemistry and physics.

            We are not talking poison but physics effect.

            Very wrong he is!

          5. SebastianH

            It’s not an analogy. It’s a demonstration of small changes in concentration of some molecules having dramatic effects. Since tomOmason thinks 300 ppm to 400 ppm is too small of a change to mean anything, I just showed how a 0.5 ppm change in another substance can be pretty dramatic and decide about life and death.

            Making fun of small concentration changes of “insignificant” trace gases as a way to argue against CO2 causing anything, is a stupid strategy.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            It’s not an analogy. It’s a demonstration of small changes in concentration of some molecules having dramatic effects.

            Since cyanide has nothing to do with the temperature of the oceans, or with climate, or with precipitation, or with sea level rise…it bears no relation to claims about CO2. You’ll need to actually demonstrate in a real-world experiment that tiny changes in airborne CO2 concentrations have “dramatic effects” on water temperatures. Since you cannot do that, concocting another SkepticalScience-copied analogy about cyanide is feckless.

            I just showed how a 0.5 ppm change in another substance can be pretty dramatic and decide about life and death.

            We exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. Would exhaling 41,000 ppm CO2 kill us? Yes or no?

            CO2 is not cyanide, SebastianH.

          7. AndyG55

            “It’s not an analogy. “

            Of course it is.

            Its nothing to do with the atmosphere or CO2.

            Its a mindless nil-science analogy.

          8. SebastianH

            Since cyanide has nothing to do with the temperature of the oceans, or with climate, or with precipitation, or with sea level rise
            At this point I’d like to remind you to read comments in the threaded view of the website, not the view in the WordPress admin interface. And also reply like the rest of us, on the website using the comment system.

            This thread was about some crazy person trying to demonstrate that it would be not sensible to assume a change from 3 to 4 particles in 10000 particles could to anything, since it is so small an number. The only sensible reply to nonsense like that is, to show that there are scenarios where even less of a change means big effect.

            The physics of GHGs are well known. There is no magic effect that has yet to be discovered that makes bodies of water behave the way you hope they behave.

            We exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. Would exhaling 41,000 ppm CO2 kill us? Yes or no?

            Exhaling while not being in a sealed room will not kill you. However, if you happen to be in a submarine or space craft, you need CO2 scrubbers or you’ll die pretty quickly, you’ll start to get dizzy at 5000 ppm.

            But that’s not the point here at all. The point is to show tomOmason that his attempt to “demonstrate” a change in CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm has no effect was a stupid attempt.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            The physics of GHGs are well known. There is no magic effect that has yet to be discovered

            So how much cooling will removing 10 ppm CO2 from the air above a body of water cause? How much warming will occur from increasing water vapor concentrations by 1,000 ppm above a body of water? These are well known physics, right? So answer the questions with real-world physical measurements.

            This thread was about some crazy person trying to demonstrate that it would be not sensible to assume a change from 3 to 4 particles in 10000 particles could to anything, since it is so small an number.

            Do you happen to recall what those specific “particles” were? Were they cyanide particles? Or were they CO2 molecules? Does the latter actually have something to do with claims about the climate…or were we talking about poison and the human body here?

          10. Kenneth Richard

            At this point I’d like to remind you to read comments in the threaded view of the website, not the view in the WordPress admin interface. And also reply like the rest of us, on the website using the comment system.

            My comments about cyanide appear directly below your comments about cyanide. So I have no idea what you’re talking about. And even if this was out of order, I will continue to operate as I see fit here. Why do you think of yourself as entitled to tell me how to navigate this blog? Your hubris is so off-putting and rude.

          11. AndyG55

            Typical seb,

            Caught out with a mindless, meaningless, irrelevant, child-minded analogy.

            And continues to DOUBLE DOWN on being STUPID. !!

            Poor little fella doesn’t really have much choice.. Its all he has.

            Let’s discuss something RELEVANT, shall we.

            Do you have ANY empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 levels cause warming of oceans, atmosphere, or anything ?

            Or are you going to continue with your mind-numbed, juvenile attempts at distraction from the real issue?

            “There is no magic effect that has yet to be discovered “

            ROFLMAO..

            They haven’t “discovered” any warming effect at all, have they, seb.

            They have postulated and fabricated in their little la-la fantasy land…. but have proven NOTHING.

            Its just a NON-SCIENCE MYTH.

            Perhaps seb can “discover” a fairy at the bottom of his troll-hole.

          12. AndyG55

            “you’ll start to get dizzy at 5000 ppm.”

            OK, so there is no problem with raising atmospheric CO2 level to 1200, or even 2000 ppm

            Thanks for verifying that FACT , seb. !

            And please, don’t PRETEND that it would cause some fantasy warming…

            You KNOW that you cannot back up that particular fantasy with anything resembling actual real empirical science.

          13. AndyG55

            “concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm has no effect “

            What effect does it have, seb?

            We know it allows for considerably enhanced plant growth.. measured in thousands of studies.

            Are you finally prepared to show some empirical, measured data that shows that raising atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm has ANY other effect ??

          14. SebastianH

            My comments about cyanide appear directly below your comments about cyanide. So I have no idea what you’re talking about.

            I am going to ignore your other comment above because that is likely just the result of you not seeing the whole thread.

            The problem is not “out of order comments”, the problem is that you don’t see the comment that started a thread/subthread. Cyanide and CO2 have nothing in common, yes. But that was not the point …

            This thread was about some crazy person trying to demonstrate that it would be not sensible to assume a change from 3 to 4 particles in 10000 particles could to anything, since it is so small an number. The only sensible reply to nonsense like that is, to show that there are scenarios where even less of a change means big effect.

            That was the point …

            Why do you think of yourself as entitled to tell me how to navigate this blog?

            I am telling you that this way of commenting makes your comment appear like you are only replying to one specific comment and are ignoring the rest of a thread. It’s also often the case that you want to begin a completely unrelated discussion inside a thread, more or less derailing it. It’s irritating …

          15. AndyG55

            YAWN,

            You poor EMPTY arrogant, attention-seeking sad-sack, seb.

            You were the CLOWN that brought up the stupid , ignorant cyanide analogy. !!

            It is noted that you COMPLETELY avoid a simple question, yet again….

            What effect does enhancing aCO2 from 300 to 400ppm have, seb?

            We know it allows for considerably enhanced plant growth.. measured in thousands of studies.

            Are you finally prepared to show some empirical, measured data that shows that raising atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm has ANY other effect ??

            Seems that the comment was right on the money. and that you are TOTALLY UNABLE top respond with any actual science related to the subject.

        2. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Sub-normal chatbot SebH has used that stupid analogy before. It’s still wrong.

          Slight increases in [CO2] have measurable beneficial effects on plants, just as slight increases in [KCN] have measurable negative effects on living things. In each case that is due to their chemical reactivity. Unfortunately for sub-std seb, chemical affinity and irreversible reactivity is not an appropriate metaphor for the scattering of light and it’s consequences, especially those that are more imagined than real.

          1. SebastianH

            The put a drop of food colouring into a bucket of 10000 drops of water and observe the color change. Happy now?

          2. SebastianH

            Add another drop and you see almost no change at all.

            If you think so. Please do the experiment and be surprised …

          3. AndyG55

            Oh, now seb thinks that food colouring makes things warmer.

            So hilarious.

          4. AndyG55

            Let’s ask the question again, watch seb duck and weave like a headless chook

            —-

            What effect does enhancing aCO2 from 300 to 400ppm have, seb?

            We know it allows for considerably enhanced plant growth.. measured in thousands of studies.

            Are you finally prepared to show some empirical, measured data that shows that raising atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm has ANY other effect ??

            We are all waiting for your empty mind to actually present something other than anti-science greenie sludge.

          5. AndyG55

            btw seb .

            CO2 is COLOURLESS.

          6. AndyG55

            How about we put some drops of concentrated sea-weed extract in the water, and feed it to some plants 🙂

            Then we can see the REAL and ONLY proven effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2.

    3. Bitter&twisted

      DNFTT

    4. Luke

      Hi Seb, is it your understanding, that at the core of climate sensitivity calculation is just how much added co2 will affect the bulk atmospheric emissivity? Ignoring feedbacks that is. The reason I ask is because that is an assailable proposition.

    5. Denis Ables

      Seb must also be ignoring the IPCC admission of “hiatus”. Co2 is now at its highest level in hundreds of thousands of years, and … global temperature is not rising. That says all one needs to know about co2 sensitivity.

      There’s also now a meta-study demonstrating that the MWP was global and likely warmer than it is now. Taking this off the alarmist/warmist table finishes them off.

      1. SebastianH

        Come on, even the last skeptic should know by now that there is no “hiatus” in global warming. Did the heat content stop its increase in the last decades?

        Where do you guys get this misinformation that global temperature is not rising? From bloggers claiming they know better “because they are a skeptic” and claim that the instrumental record and OHC measurements are all fake? Wake up, please. You are being fooled by the so-called skeptics.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Come on, even the last skeptic should know by now that there is no “hiatus” in global warming. Did the heat content stop its increase in the last decades?

          Zhou and Wang, 2017
          https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789
          “Land surface air temperature (Ta) is one of the fundamental variables in weather and climatic observations, modeling, and applications. Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global ‘warming hiatus’

          Hedemann et al., 2017
          http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3274.html
          [T]he origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified. … The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”

          Xie et al., 2017
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4809/abstract
          As the recent global warming hiatus has attracted worldwide attention, we examined the robustness of the warming hiatus in China and the related dynamical mechanisms in this study. Based on the results confirmed by the multiple data and trend analysis methods, we found that the annual mean temperature in China had a cooling trend during the recent global warming hiatus period, which suggested a robust warming hiatus in China. The warming hiatus in China was dominated by the cooling trend in the cold season, which was mainly induced by the more frequent and enhanced extreme-cold events.”
          —–
          Xian and Fu, 2017
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5130/abstract
          “Despite continually increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas, there has been a hiatus in rising global temperatures during the 21st century.”
          —–
          Liu and Zhou, 2017
          https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40947
          “Here, we divided recent decades into the recent hiatus period [1998-2013] and the preceding warming period (1983–1998) to investigate the atmospheric footprint. We use a process-resolving analysis method to quantify the contributions of different processes to the total temperature changes. … [C]limate models designed to represent the physics and dynamics of the climate system project that GMST [global mean surface temperature] continued to rise in the early 2000s. Dominant mechanisms proposed to understand the hiatus included the internal climate variability and ocean heat uptake and transport”

          1. SebastianH

            the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady

            It has not.

            The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend.

            The observed trend is 0.12 C per decade. The CMIP5 trend is not 0.29 C per decade.

            OHC 0-700 m
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

            OHC 0-2000 m
            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

          2. Kenneth Richard

            It has not.

            Only with a natural Super El Nino event (2015-’16) has there been a small warming trend in the last 20 years. Remove that natural event, and there was a cooling.

            The observed trend is 0.12 C per decade. The CMIP5 trend is not 0.29 C per decade.

            Actually, it was 0.30 C per decade. Just as it was in 1990, when the IPCC predicted it would warm between 0.2 and 0.5 C per decade, with a “central estimate” of 0.3 C.

            Instead, it cooled between 1998 and 2015, and even after including the natural El Nino warming, it’s warmed by only 0.15 C since 1998. That’s 0.07 C per decade, 1/4th of the predicted trend.

            http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/climate/overestimated%20warming.pdf
            “[W]e considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few [3 of 117] simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).”

          3. SebastianH

            Only with a natural Super El Nino event (2015-’16) has there been a small warming trend in the last 20 years. Remove that natural event, and there was a cooling.

            As you like to point out 90+% of the climate change happens in the oceans. Don’t ignore the heat content.

            But how about removing other things? Every small cooling? All natural, right? We? Also completely natural behaviour, right? After all everything is natural. Again, don’t ignore the heat content.

            Instead, it cooled between 1998 and 2015, and even after including the natural El Nino warming, it’s warmed by only 0.15 C since 1998. That’s 0.07 C per decade, 1/4th of the predicted trend.

            What is this? How to cherry pick dates the best way? Oh Kenneth.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1988/to:2018/plot/uah6/from:1988/to:2018/trend = 0.128 °C per decade

            Stop cherry picking …

            http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/climate/overestimated%20warming.pdf
            “[W]e considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of […]

            https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

          4. yonason (from my cell phone)

            “One could be a little sarcastic in saying why would Nature devote seven of its desirable pages to an event that some vehemently say never existed and maintain its existence has been disproved long ago. Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off, analysing the ‘pause’ seems to be coming back into fashion.” – Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/04/new-study-confirms-the-warming-pause-is-real-and-revealing/

            Basically, as reality in the form of a very real pause in warming stubbornly refuses to submit to their fantasy, warmunistas move the goal posts.

            …”settled science,” FEH!

          5. AndyG55

            “How to cherry pick dates”

            In seb’s case, how to use El Nino steps to fabricate a warming trend.

            He is either TOTALLY IGNORANT, or he KNOWS that those El Ninos are the ONLY warming in the satellite data..

            … so he HAS to use them.

            He KNOWS that there was:

            NO WARMING from 1980-1997 and

            NO WARMING from 2001-2015

            He is SO DUMB that he doesn’t realise that EVERY TIME he creates a linear trend across these steps and transients, he PROVES MY POINT.

            Thanks seb.

        2. sunsettommy

          Sebastian, when will you ever acknowledge the failures of the PER DECADE warming trend prediction/projection by the IPCC?

          1. SebastianH

            What is the observed trend in your opinion? And how far back are you willing to go for predictions to find one that isn’t as fitting as more current ones?

          2. sunsettommy

            I gave you the Satellite trends against the predicted/projected trends about 8 different past comments. I no longer post it in full because you don’t acknowledge it at all.

            We both KNOW that the warming rate is about HALF the predicted/projected rate, which by itself invalidate the AGW conjecture since the present rate is similar to past warming trend rates going back to the 1880’s, of which I also posted before based on DR. Jones BBC interview.

            AndyG55, has posted a few times showing that El-Nino events cause virtually all of the warming since 1979.

            As usual you have nothing.

          3. SebastianH

            We both KNOW that the warming rate is about HALF the predicted/projected rate

            I think you guys are confusing predictions from the certain scenarios with predictions for what actually happened. We are not in the “business as usual” scenario …

            AndyG55, has posted a few times showing that El-Nino events cause virtually all of the warming since 1979.

            This is just plain stupid. Just ask youself how a one time warming event that basically just redistributes heat can cause a long time increase of temperatures. Explain that mechanism in detail please.

          4. AndyG55

            “Explain that mechanism in detail please.”

            You have proven that it is POINTLESS explaining anything to you, seb.

            You DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.

            Your brain-hosed wilful ignorance cannot be overcome.

          5. yonason (from my cell phone)

            I’ll see their hockey schtick, and raise them with reality…
            http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

            See also here…
            http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/extreme-cool-warm.html

            H/T – Art Ford, comment #1 at joannenova

        3. AndyG55

          “Come on, even the last skeptic should know by now that there is no “hiatus” in global warming.”

          OHC is an assumption driven MODELLED.

          As soon as they were able to actually measure it, look what happened.

          https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

          There also HASN’T BEEN and “global” warming..

          .. many parts of the globe HAVE NOT WARMED in the last many years.

          You KNOW this, the data has been put in front of you, SO STOP LYING !!!

          And in the satellite data, there has been TWO NON-WARMING periods, taking up 33 years of the 39 years.

          https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

          https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

          REAL DATA is an anathema to you, isn’t it seb. !!

          FACTS mean NOTHING to you.

          1. SebastianH

            As soon as they were able to actually measure it, look what happened.

            https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg

            Fixed that for you:
            https://imgur.com/a/1KjPi

            Look at what happened!

          2. AndyG55
          3. AndyG55

            And of course your very high priests actually ADMIT the following….

            “‘The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there,’ said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. ”

            Quite funny really. Lots of this MYTHICAL heat coming in, but they ADMIT that they can’t measure it.

            I wonder where the OCH fabrications are coming from.. seeing that ,” we do not have the instruments to measure there”

            OOPS, Its difficult to keep LIES straight, isn’t it seb.

          4. SebastianH

            Of course, AndyG55 replies with “all fake anyway”. How predictable 🙂

            “‘The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there,’ said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. ”

            Don’t worry, Kenneth can find you one or more papers with below 2000 meter data (it’s also increasing). He did so just last week.

          5. AndyG55

            Ok seb , produce the actual MEASURED DATA, which even Ted Sheppard ADMITS is not there..

            You are VERY BAD at producing real data, aren’t you, seb.

            Just modelled fantasies.

          6. AndyG55

            So DESPITE proof that “adjustments” have been made to the REAL DATA (always in the one direction, of course)

            This is totally acceptable to your ANTI-science brain-hosed sludge.

            You live in a world of DENIAL and FANTASY, seb.

            Found that REAL DATA that shows enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming of ocean or atmosphere.

  4. "Cambiamento Sismico" nella scienza del clima ... La stima sul riscaldamento globale indotto dalla CO2 presentato dall'IPCC è "Troppo Alto" ... "Teoria in caduta libera" : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  5. RAH

    You knew this just had to happen with all the hyped claims over the years. Gavin and Hanson already started back pedaling trying to cover their butts. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/24/nasa-james-hansen-gavin-schmidt-paper-10-more-years-of-global-warming-pause-maybe/

    I suspect there will more, lots more, though they will give all kinds of excuses for the coming cooling period. And the only reason why is because they simply cannot get away with adjusting the temperatures and records enough to counter the natural cooling.

  6. A. Scott

    Note the authors … the ‘models are broken…’

    Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates
    Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins, Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou

    “We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

    1. AndyG55

      If the temperatures drop down like most REAL scientists say they are going to, the models are going to look EVEN SICKER against the troposphere temperatures.

      Graph is current models against HadCrud4,

      Red is UAH, probable range derived from comments from several sources. May actually go slightly lower, time will tell.

      https://s19.postimg.org/hdcwfonkj/biggestfail.png

      1. Kenneth Richard

        h/t Andyg55

        1. AndyG55

          Poor Nick, he is making a COMPLETE and UTTER fool of himself.

          Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. 🙂

          The desperation is palpable 🙂

        2. SebastianH

          Someone over there gets why one needs to be very skeptical about paper reviews/postings of Kenneth 😉

          KR has on past occasions found needing to be taken with a grain of salt. Not entirely trustworthy (stuff out of context, plus no critical paper review). KR MO is if it ‘debunks CAGW, he’s on it and citing it even if the paper is actually as bad as Kinnard 2011.

          What I’ve been saying for quite some time. You expect skepticism and aren’t the least bit skeptic yourself when it comes to papers supporting your opinion. Instead, you justify this by needing to bring up those ridiculous things because you feel there could be something to it … finally something that could bring AGW to fall. So you blindly believe it.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            I invite any specific examples of this “out of context” claim. I do know that at WUWT, they disavow anyone who does not at least agree that the CO2-heats-oceans conceptualization is truth. Willis E, a regular contributor, tries to destroy anyone who dares claim that the Sun plays a significant role in warming, calling any paper that suggests this “junk”. Any alternative viewpoints are not welcome. So the fact that we (I probably shouldn’t speak for Pierre – I) don’t shun papers that question the constructs of the 33K greenhouse effect, or papers that document a significant role for the Sun in climate change, means that we I do not do “critical paper review” according to people who have dismissed alternative views such as those by Nikolov and Zeller (who are not welcome at WUWT either). I think it’s good to at least consider other points of view…especially since GHE theory cannot explain the temperatures of planets like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune. I will continue to explore alternative views on the topic of planetary heating.

          2. AndyG55

            Another ZERO CONTENT seb post.

            YAWN !!!

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth, surprisingly the GHE can also not explain the temperature of the Sun. Do you think the Sun’s temperature is also something caused by ongoing compression or a “gravito thermal effect”? 😉

            I invite any specific examples of this “out of context” claim.

            Nearly every time you quote something from a paper. Often the very next sentence after the quote makes the whole quote stand in a very different light …

            Not a recent thing, but one instance I do remember, is when you quoted from the DMI SMB website: https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

            Conveniently leaving out “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

          4. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @Kenneth Richard 26. February 2018 at 12:59 AM

            I’m not a big fan of WUWT, the individual you mention being one of several reasons why. I do occasionally cite a few articles from there, but I try to avoid it (probably not hard enough). I’ll try harder from now on. Thx.

          5. AndyG55

            “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.””

            Comment has been there for MANY years. It is a GENERIC unscientific comment.

            FACT is that Greenland ice area is just a TINY bit down from it HIGHEST in 8000+ years

            https://s19.postimg.org/ceo16fi7n/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Briner.jpg

            And any losses, be they gravity measurement based errors or base losses due to volcanic activity, are TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT in the REAL world
            (not the seb fantasy world, where everything is ultra scary !!)

            https://s19.postimg.org/9i1vx9lv7/Greenland_ice_mass2.png

    2. Christopher Hanley

      Funny how the model hindcasts look fine, it’s just the forecasts that go askew.
      The known temperature trajectory of last two decades of the twentieth century would have been used to tune the models, I detect a certain circularity in their argument.

      1. AndyG55

        If they use GISS or any other of the CORRUPTED, NOT-REAL temperature data sets for hindcasting and fitting, they have an AUTOMATIC TREND ERROR baked into their models.

        But if the used something closer to reality, with the 1940’s peak still intact, and little to none CO2 sensitivity then they “might” have a chance.

        But that would ruin the whole of the AGW scam, wouldn’t it. 😉

        They have built a massive CATCH 22 situation for themselves.

        I find it quite hilarious. 🙂

  7. M E

    I meant ‘The way History is progressing ) of course.” Mankind” progressing through various stages from Savagery to S
    uperior races, of course. Very 19th Century in outlook and based entirely on theory and not observation.

  8. TomRude
  9. tom0mason

    As CO2’s ability to warm the globe’s lower atmosphere is at best negligible, probably zero, all the hype and no product.
    And CO2 is essential for life, along with the sun’s energy. CO2 at 800 ppm ensures ALL life flourishes very well, including bacteria, plants, fish, crustaceans, everything, including humans. So why this academic circle-jerk competition to find out what is bad about CO2. There is no quantifiable downside!
    “Oh it would make the seas acid” they yell.
    NO, NO, NO.
    Impossible! It’s a highly buffered solute, with more than enough processes to prevent it.
    “Oh it would heat up the atmosphere!”,
    NO, NO, NO!
    Look at past. Over the last few million years global temperatures have been higher and sometimes lower than now but NEVER has CO2 shown any control of it!
    QED all this is about POLITICAL sophistry to demonize CO2 is just to restrict you, your wealth, and your lifestyle, and nothing else.

  10. AndyG55

    Greenland SMB above average, BIG gains in last couple of days.

    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20180224.png

  11. Denis Ables

    Alarmists invariably DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than now. They acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. Perhaps this is because their computer modelers cannot explain a global MWP. After all, their models require increasing co2 level and also depend on the ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by co2 increase. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, so not until long after the MWP. Without co2 increase there is, of course, also no temperature increase brought on by water vapor feedback. Since the MWP must have been due to natural climate variation, it becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly due to NATURAL climate variation. But, that conflicts with the UN’s IPCC claim that our current warming is principally caused by increasing co2, which is synonymous with human activity.

    Unfortunately for alarmists, a brief meta-analysis follows which shows that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

    The MWP trend is conclusively shown as global by temperature data derived from 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    The receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a 1,000 year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. It appears obvious that it was warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now. Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

    There are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results were reflected in the earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations from numerous countries. It’s curious that neither Mann and his cohort nor the IPCC attempted to reconcile those studies with the conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of the alarmists’ own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it was a different “ballgame”. A subset of these MWP studies directly addresses temperature estimates. One such study is the Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study which shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska.

    The MWP studies have been conveniently cataloged at co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic, but the numerous studies he has cataloged were independently performed by researchers representing numerous other countries.

    Readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing a half dozen (say) regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. You will find that the selected site(s) were warmer during the MWP than now.

    Other observations include antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites have been found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

    This meta-analysis is based on straight-forward studies. Also, the MWP studies as well as various observations are all consistent with the borehole data results and vice-versa. It’s worth repeating that this meta-study does NOT involve controversial “models”, dubious statistics, nor controversial data machinations. The peer-reviewed results reflect the work of numerous different researchers.

    One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” a global MWP is their claim that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally all performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” argument must also be prepared to admit that our current warming is not global.

    For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the current global warming temperature increase. But there was a well-definied three decade GLOBAL cooling PERIOD from about 1945 to 1975. That’s much more significant than just one region being “out of synch”. Therefore, any current global warming consideration must take its starting point no earlier than 1975. We know temperature begin increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which can no longer justify its mission if our current warming is NATURAL) has recognized another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. Therefore our most recent global warming period began in 1975 and this global temperature increase ended in 1998, so all this controversy involves no more than than two decades which ended two decades ago. But wait … ! Even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming because there were numerous regions and/or countries which experienced no additional warming over durations which include that span.
    http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

    There are also reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and running until 1830. Co2 level did not begin increasing until 1830, at the earliest. But it would have taken many decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having any impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing very slightly in 1830.

    It is therefore quite plausible that our warming (such as it was) has been due to NATURAL forcings, as in the MWP. More importantly, the proponents of AGW who deny the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer, than it is now, are obviously mistaken. If they can’t get even the MWP right, why should anyone believe their 100 year projections into the future?

  12. Dr Norman Page

    Re CO2 and Climate see section 1 at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    and DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
    journals.sagepub.com/home/eae

    “For the atmosphere as a whole therefore cloud processes, including convection and its interaction with boundary layer and larger-scale circulation, remain major sources of uncertainty, which propagate through the coupled climate system. Various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections have been explored, but there is still no agreed strategy for weighting the projections from different models based on their historical performance so that there is no direct means of translating quantitative measures of past performance into confident statements about fidelity of future climate projections.The use of a multi-model ensemble in the IPCC assessment reports is an attempt to characterize the impact of parameterization uncertainty on climate change predictions. The shortcomings in the modeling methods, and in the resulting estimates of confidence levels, make no allowance for these uncertainties in the models. In fact, the average of a multi-model ensemble has no physical correlate in the real world.
    The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4): “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
    What could be clearer? The IPCC itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way. The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures. “

    1. tom0mason

      Thank you Dr Norman Page for insight and knowledge of what was actually written in the IPCC documentation. Not many of us can get through the IPCC’s ultra-bureaucratic output.

  13. AndyG55

    https://www.thelocal.de/20180226/coldest-night-of-year-has-germans-shivering-from-berlin-to-bavaria

    More “global” warming in Germany. 😉

    How well do wind and solar work at that temperature and when covered with snow.?

    Thank goodness they have access to plentiful fossil fuels, even if they have had to up their imports of coal from the USA. 😉

  14. Settled Science is “Adjusting” their Estimates Downward – CO2 is Life

    […] Continue Reading […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close