Schellnhuber: “Entire Complexity Of The Climate System Can Be Reduced To A Simple Linear Relationship.”

Below Rainer Hoffmann presents Part 3 of his “10 Inconvenient Truths About Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber“. I wrote about Part 1 here, and Part 2 focused on Schellnhuber’s claiming that climate models provide projections, forecasts, scenarios, prognoses, depending on the situation being served at hand.

Part 3 below shows a whopper: Schellnhuber claiming that the complex, chaotic climate system can all be reduced down to a “simple linear relationship” with CO2 emissions.

The video starts by explaining how climate is a highly complex, chaotic non-linear system that cannot be defined by any single variable. At the 2:14 mark IPCC scientist Mojib Latif explains that calculating the future outcome of a system as complex as the climate is an impossible task. This is confirmed by Prof Andreas Bott at the 6:33 mark, “The systems of equations are non-linear, and thus not predictable.” The first 14 minutes of the film explain this in detail.

Even the 2001 IPCC reports tells us:

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

But not everyone agrees with this.

For one, in 2009 Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research told us that climate is actually a simple system where global temperature behaves linearly with CO2 concentration. At the 15:00 mark Schellnhuber said on Phoenix public television on November 23, 2009:

We have been able to show at our institute, also our friends at Oxford, and at the University of Victoria in Vancouver Island, that there is an extremely simple, quasi linear relationship between the global mean temperature, that is the increase and the total amount of CO2 that will be blown into the atmosphere over the next four or five decades. The entire complexity of our climate system can be reduced to this simple linear relationship. Nature has done this favor as an exception.”

What a con-job. Schellnhuber then goes on to claim that scientists know exactly how much CO2 is allowed to be blown into the atmosphere before the climate systems tips: “750 billion tonnes of CO2 over the next 4 decades“.

So when it appeared the planet was warming, Schellnhuber told us that climate was a simple linear equation involving 2 variables. So what does Schellnhuber say today now that the data show there hasn’t been any warming in 15 years despite rising CO2?

Look at what Schellnhuber says on April 17, 2013. At the 17:34 mark Schellnhuber is shown blaming non-linearity for the absence of warming over 15 years.

So quickly can a con-artist turn on a dime.


11 responses to “Schellnhuber: “Entire Complexity Of The Climate System Can Be Reduced To A Simple Linear Relationship.””

  1. DirkH

    The 2009 claim by Schellnhuber was just his bet; had it occured, he might actually have gone into the history books as a scientist who actually discovered something in his life.

    It didn’t, and he won’t – he still has a chance to be remembered as one of the biggest crooks though.

  2. 11 korte video's ontmaskeren Duitse klimaatpaus Schellnhuber als charlatan -

    […] Video 3 – Lineaire relatie temperatuur en CO2? Heb je moeite met Duits zie dan hierrr voor Engels. […]

  3. RC Saumarez

    I presume Professor Schnellhuber is applying Taylot’s theorem.

  4. klimamanifest von Heiligenroth

    The swindle of ““750 billion tonnes of CO2 over the next 4 decades“ will be debunked in episode 9 of “10 Inconvenient Truths About Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber“.

  5. edmh

    The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish logarithmically as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.

    Both sceptics and Global Warming advocates agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations.

    This information has been in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) .

    Up to 200 ppmv, the equivalent to about 82% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2, is essential to maintain plant life and thus life on earth.

    The current level of ~400 ppmv is already committed and immutable. At that level it amounts to 93% of the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere .

    Thus only ~7% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming greenhouse gas now remains.

    This does not look like much of a linear relationship.

    Maybe Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber should read the IPCC reports more carefully. They are the bible on climate change after all.

    1. DirkH

      “This does not look like much of a linear relationship.”

      Of course not, but if the positive water vapor feedback posited by the warmists existed, it could somewhat counteract the logarithmic nature of CO2 alone and one could end up with a more linear-looking relationship.

  6. AlecM

    Do the science properly, which means showing the many mistakes in Climate Alchemy, then incorporating the irreversible thermodynamics not considered by he IPCC, it turns out that CO2-AGW is virtually zero because the atmosphere self controls via a PID control system.

    Variations in climate are from variations in cloud and ice albedo. The real AGW was from Asian aerosols decreasing cloud albedo, and it saturated in 2000.

    The IPCC and the corrupt research groups like PKI need to be rebuilt under competent scientific leadership from outside Climate Alchemy: physicists or engineers.

  7. edmh
  8. These items caught my eye – 18 September 2013 | grumpydenier

    […] climate system can all be reduced down to a “simple linear relationship” with CO2 emissions. – Click here to read the full article […]

  9. E Martin

    quasi linear = NON linear

  10. Ike

    ot/ This was fun to read, although I don´t like Rush in some points.

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