Tag Archives: AGW

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

Everyone who cares about Climate Change and the Carbon issue should read this excellent article by Patrick Moore.

Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds

or here


Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide  – Video  

Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life that enables all plant life on earth which creates everything we eat and the Oxygen we breathe.  We breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2 with each breath.

The geologic records do not scientifically support the theory of CO2 as a control knob of temperature.

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Climate Sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide Concentrations The world is being constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man has contributed to that warming. Let us breakdown that message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization(UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2.  Carbon Dioxide is a Green House Gas in theory but in the atmosphere the back radiation spectrum is dominated by existing water vapor and the amount of additional back radiation declines logarithmically with additional CO2 so the actual effect of more CO2 is unknown. The accepted effect of doubling CO2 concentration is about 1C max.

These parts of the message should have near universal agreement. (maybe even 97%) So where are the important differences in opinion?

1. How sensitive is the Climate to changes in CO2 concentration?

2. Is the positive feedback/amplification theory real and can it cause large changes in temperature?What about negative feedbacks? What if feedbacks are net negative as would be expected in a natural long term system?

3. Can CO2 warm the climate enough to cause catastrophic events?

4. What is a reasonable probability of this occurrence?

The measurements from the three world satellite temperature sets and 4 balloon sets show an increasing divergence with the projections from the Climate Models. The assumptions that have been plugged into the Models appear to massively overestimate the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperatures. This is most noticeable in the tropics where the models and theory say CO2 should cause the most warming (see http://tinyurl.com/me5jlcd ) The temperature of the world has shown very little increase for over 19 years now which is close to the length of the previous warming period despite a rapid rise of over 40% in CO2 concentration.

There has been no increase in humidity which was theorized to massively amplify the temperature increase.  (actual decrease -see graph)


The temperatures are now so far outside of the model projections (in the less than 5 % probability range) that it is now very unlikely that CO2 concentration is the primary driver of climate. There are now 14 new peer reviewed published papers that estimate lower climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 and many sensitivity estimates are now below the estimated safe limit of 2 C.

Climate sensitivity

Unfortunately belief in Carbon Dioxide as the control knob of climate has become less of a scientific issue and more of a tool which is being used for political benefit.

Desperate Hype on 2014 as Record Warm Year

Note the error bar on the “warming” was way larger than the minuscule warming!

The widely anticipated finding deflated — but did not fully dispel — a perception that the rate of warming has slowed since the 1990s. Several scientists noted that 2014 was not a blowout, statistically speaking. The year surpassed the next runners-up by only a few hundredths of a Celsius degree, averaged across the globe. Some also noted that rising temperatures have not kept pace with computer simulations that predicted even faster warming, given the 40-percent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

The most important points are that the  satellite temperature sets show no real warming and that the rate of warming is way lower than the models predicted.

Recent warming trends are less than forecast by computer models

DR. Judith Curry is always worth reading for balanced perspective     She is quoted as follows.

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade,” said Judith Curry, professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations.”

Estimates of Climate Sensitivity to increase in CO2 content will continue to decrease. The Crisis is hugely over stated.  Even the warmists admit the claim is less likely than not.

Warming year probability

A lot of hype over something that is so marginally warmer that it is only 38 to 48 % probable that it is a record even if it is accurate.

Nice statement by Dr. Roy Spencer 

Some more good comments:

“Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen.”

“John Christy and Richard McNider, from University of Alabama (Huntsville) recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons. They found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed.”

– Pat Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute

Is the Contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect Over Estimated?

Most people are surprised to hear that the estimated amount of the GHG effect that is attributed to CO2 in the scientific literature is a range from as low as 2 % to as high as 45 %. The amount of effect will vary with latitude, altitude, time of day/night, over land/water, season, cloud cover/type and humidity, etc. so finding an average that applies over a year or decades is a tall order.  The climate models use values in the 20 to 30 % range.

As month after month goes by with the models running too hot the big question about basic assumptions comes to the top.   Where are the  assumptions wrong?  Where are the blind spots that prevent these otherwise “brilliant researchers” from seeing the potential holes in their theories?

Climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 and the changes in forcings and the positive and negative  responses to those forcings will all be non linear and change with time. The system will work its way towards an equilibrium and there will be responses to balance or offset the positive feedbacks.  The amount of energy lost to space will increase or cloud cover will change and reduce the energy imbalance. There are events in geological history which change global temperatures to a new equilibrium for a period but changes in CO2 content does not have much support as a control knob in geological history.

The estimates of Climate Sensitivity are based on many assumptions but the most basic assumption is the amount of greenhouse effect that is attributed to CO2.   There appears to be no way to empirically determine that amount but the estimates will continue to decrease as the bust in the model predictions grows.

Death of the Positive Feedback Theory – Climate Sensitivity Continues to Decline

This post was inspired by this article by Dr. J Curry about her new paper about lower climate sensitivity. see here http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/  Note that she also presented this data before Senate Energy Committee.

The vast majority of global warming is predicted to occur from positive feedbacks to the small warming caused by the increased backradiation from increased CO2 content(max of 1 degree is possible due to logarithmic decline in backradiation). The warming is theorized to increase humidity which is predicted to increase temperature by increasing the greenhouse effect and cause up to 85% of the total warming. But what if the humidity in the air is already mostly saturated? Positive feedback is also known as the amplification theory. Positive feedbacks in nature usually are short term or local and are balanced by negative or reaction feedbacks that cause the system to return to equilibrium. Long term systems in nature by definition have to have net negative or balancing feedbacks or the system would be unstable and therefore be short life.

The CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen dramatically every year for many decades now and yet the humidity and the temperatures have not risen a fraction of what was predicted by the theories. The latest IPCC AR5 lowered the climate sensitivity estimates and there have been  many new peer reviewed and published papers that have even lower sensitivity estimates.(less than 1.5 degrees) . The new estimates are converging to be less than the safe limit of less than 2 C.

The Positive Feedback Theory and Catastrophic Climate Change are on the final circle of the sewer drain of scientific history. If there is NO significant amount of warming then there is NO CRISIS.

Climate sensitivity

Click on image for higher res version.

Climate Sensitivity to Changes in CO2 Has Been Overestimated.

Climate Sensitivity To Changes In CO2 Has Been Overestimated.
March 21, 2014

New research has been published that shows that Climate Sensitivity to changes in CO2 has been overestimated by Climate Scientists.  The issue of Climate Sensitivity is discussed in an article in the Economist Magazine and is a must read.

See  http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

The top climate scientists in the world have acknowledged that the global temperatures are trending way below the temperature forecasts generated by their computer simulators despite climbing world CO2 release rates.  The Climate Sensitivity to increases in CO2 has been over estimated by Scientists.  This means that something is wrong with the theories and sensitivity assumptions in the computer models.

The concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is based on three main theories that each depend on the previous theory.  The first theory is that the first doubling of CO2 will cause about 1 C of warming due to long wave back radiation from the increased CO2.  This is called the Greenhouse Gas theory and the effect may be muted due to spectrum overlap between CO2 and water vapor.  Subsequent doublings of CO2 concentration have minimal effect due to the logarithmic decline in back radiation. Therefore further Carbon Dioxide increases of any amount CAN NOT CAUSE dangerous levels of warming increases WITHOUT POSITIVE FEEDBACKS

The second theory is called the amplification or positive feedback theory.  The 1 C warming is predicted to cause higher humidity and more clouds which should trap more heat.  The problems are that clouds can also reflect sunlight or that water vapor can release heat at altitude by condensing into precipitation which then will cause cooling at lower altitudes.  The net effect is most likely negative so the model temperature predictions based on positive feedbacks will be too high which is becoming apparent. Natural systems have negative feedbacks which means they are self correcting stable long term systems as positive feedback mean that a system is unstable and would terminate.
The climate models are programmed with assumptions that these large positive feedbacks will cause major runaway warming in the troposphere in lower latitudes but that predicted warming has not occurred in the actual balloon or satellite data.  See graphs below which show prediction versus reality or see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

The Economist article refers to various new peer reviewed studies that now estimate total climate sensitivity to increased CO2 is probably less than 2 C.

The second new article that has just been published in Nature-Geoscience from a high-profile international team led by Oxford scientists that estimates Transient Climate Response (TCR) at 1.3°C along with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity at 2.0°C. The contributors include 14 lead authors of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Scientific Assessment Report(AR5) which also lowered the climate sensitivity. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

The third theory is that the estimated warming will be large enough to lead to bad catastrophic effects.  The world has warmed about .8 C in the last 100 years with at least .4 C occurred before 1950 as natural rebound from the Little Ice Age. Low climate sensitivity estimates of less than 2 C can not lead to extreme weather as there is no scientific mechanism for CO2 to influence the climate without warming. No link has been established between mild warming and droughts, tornadoes or hurricanes. See Roger Pielke Jr link to Senate testimony in July  http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/ and the recent IPCC AR5 report. The AR5 reported low confidence levels on any links between Climate Change and Catastrophic Events

Mild warming has many positive benefits like less fuel use, less cold deaths (see Europe and USA in recent cold winters), minor sea level rise and easier lives. Mild warming combined with higher CO2 concentrations also increases crop yields and greens the earth.  http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18669647-global-greening-the-other-greenhouse-effect-is-underway?lite

This is great news for the world that the Climate Crisis has been over estimated and overstated.  The hundred’s of billions that the world has spent to date is gone (not counting 100’s of billions on wind and solar) but the world will not have to spend the trillions that scientists and politicians have forecasted. 


Temperature vs Models

Climate sensitivity