Another study finds CO2’s greenhouse effect contribution and climate sensitivity are much smaller than claimed by the IPCC and proponents of anthropogenic global warming.
Ollila (2019) reconfigures the “consensus”-derived greenhouse effect radiation values and finds (a) LW absorption only adds 45% to Earth’s present atmospheric greenhouse effect, (b) water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and (c) CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling.
Image Source: Ollila (2019)
The reconfiguration eliminates the “physical contradiction” of having a 155.6 W/m² create an energy flux of 345.6 W/m² by rejecting the claim that the entire longwave energy flux is from greenhouse gases.
Further, CO2’s total temperature contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced from 7.2°C to 2.4°C, which better aligns with the climate sensitivity (doubled CO2) estimate of 0.6°C.
The IPCC models have been pretty accurate: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064888
More support can be found at philipsphilosophy.wordpress.com.
Ross McKitrick looks at Hausfather et al. and concludes that it is not informative as an exercise in climate model evaluation:
“It is, however, informative with regards to past IPCC emission/concentration projections and shows that the IPCC has for a long time been relying on exaggerated forecasts of global greenhouse gas emissions”.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/17/explaining-the-discrepancies-between-hausfather-et-al-2019-and-lewiscurry-2018/
The IPCC models have been pretty accurate? Surely you’re kidding!
Oh Really?
I must have missed the report that the New York freeway that Hansen predicted to be under water by now is actually under water.
Yeah…they’ve been using amphibious taxi’s the last 10 years on the west side.
Great, but still complete nonsense.
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/24/hot-plate-heat-lamp-and-gases-in-between/
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/
I have just been reading a book, published in 1962, by the then head of the UK Met Office. Regarding the green house effect, water vapour is discussed but CO2 hardly gets a mention.
That was back when they thought rising CO2 might destroy the increase of temperature.
Claims from all sides are questionable (Re: Climate Model Skill) because the level of *uncertainty* in the cloud effect is still an order of magnitude greater than the entire anthropogenic CO2 effect.
Using data over the limited 32 year time frame of reliable data, the warming effect of Anthro CO2 is from 0.6 C° to 1.4 C° per doubling (but uncertainty is still too high…not enough time yet). But the claimed Hydrological positive multiplier 3X’s effect is likely way too high…and could actually be negative!
But so far, actual data indicates that the median IPCC projections are 200%-300% too high.
And the AMDO has begun turning negative over the last decade which is strongly predictive of increasing Arctic Ice Extents and declining GAT’s (citations everywhere…common knowledge until 1980 when government funding started incentivizing Activism for AGW results).
Science funding sources almost always determines the results…and it’s obvious that Most Climate Scientists are willing Activists whose “income levels and income security” = f(results)…and that’s all amplified by their Socialist political leanings.
It’s been known for years that CO2 is a bit player as a greenhouse gas,https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html and that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. The way they’ve tricked people since the global warming scam began was to remove water vapor as a greenhouse gas.
Claims from all sides are questionable (Re: Climate Model Skill) because the level of *uncertainty* in the cloud effect is still an order of magnitude greater than the entire anthropogenic CO2 effect.
Using data over the limited 32 year time frame of reliable data, the warming effect of Anthro CO2 is from 0.6 C° to 1.4 C° per doubling (but uncertainty is still too high…not enough time yet). But the claimed Hydrological positive multiplier 3X’s effect is likely way too high…and could actually be negative!
But so far, actual data indicates that the median IPCC projections are 200%-300% too high.
And the AMDO has begun turning negative over the last decade which is strongly predictive of increasing Arctic Ice Extents and declining GAT’s (citations everywhere…common knowledge until 1980 when government funding started incentivizing Activism for AGW results).
Science funding sources almost always determines the results…and it’s obvious that Most Climate Scientists are willing Activists whose “income levels and income security” = f(results)…and that’s all amplified by their Socialist political leanings.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/27/study-recalculates-new-greenhouse-effect-values-and-sharply-mini… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/27/study-recalculates-new-greenhouse-effect-values-and-sharply-mini… […]