Published measurements of climate sensitivity declining

Written by Laterite

Officially published scientific evidence proves that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is not as strong as predicted. Thus alarmist claims about man-made global warming have no basis in fact. CO2 graph

The climate sensitivity due to CO2 is expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. 

The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year. The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the “inertia” of ocean heat uptake.

Scientists made numerous estimates of climate sensitivity over the last few decades and have yet to determine the correct value.  The figure shows the change in published climate sensitivity measurements over the past 15 years (from here).  The ECS and TCR estimates have both declined in the last 15 years, with the ECS declining from 6C to less than 2C.  While one cannot extrapolate from past results, it is likely that the true figure is below 2C, and may continue to decline.  Based on this historic pattern we should reject the studies that falsely exaggerated the climate sensitivity in the past and remember that global warming is not the most serious issue facing the world today.

Read more at landshape.wordpress.com

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Dr Pierre R Latour has requested the following posted to this article:
    ECS slope = (2.0 – 4.3)/(2015 – 2000) = -2.3/15 = -0.153/yr
    TCR slope = (1.5 – 2.4)/(2015 – 2000) = -0.9/15 = -0.060/yr
    So ECS = 2.0 – 0.153(year – 2015)
    TCR = 1.5 – 0.060(year – 2015)
    Linear extrapolation
    ECS = 0 in 2028 and < 0 forever after
    TCR = 0 in 2040 and < 0 forever after I did not need a computer model to predict this, just my mind and a calculator.
    Pierre Latour

  • Avatar

    Boris Winterhalter

    |

    I am very glad that CS has come down in value and hopefully will be deemed as totally inferior to water vapour.

    It suffices to consider the geological record following the formation of our oceans. Furthermor it should be noted that the physical properties of H2O from ice to fluid water to gas (vapour) is a highly effective “thermostat” utilizing heat transfer processes from evaporation (absorbing heat) to condensation (liberating heat).

    This “thermostat” has been able to keep our Earth at a suitable temperature for the development of a very variable fauna and flora and their flourishment through time.

    In this context CO2 should only be considered as food for plants and thus also for animals of all sizes.

  • Avatar

    Boris Winterhalter

    |

    I am very glad that CS has come down in value and hopefully will be deemed as totally inferior to water vapour.

    It suffices to consider the geological record following the formation of our oceans. Furthermor it should be noted that the physical properties of H2O from ice to fluid water to gas (vapour) is a highly effective “thermostat” utilizing heat transfer processes from evaporation (absorbing heat) to condensation (liberating heat).

    This “thermostat” has been able to keep our Earth at a suitable temperature for the development of a very variable fauna and flora and their flourishment through time.

    In this context CO2 should only be considered as food for plants and thus also for animals of all sizes.

  • Avatar

    CleanEnergyPundit

    |

    Even if, for the sake of the argument, one allows the IPCC warming forecast of 4degC by 2100 due to manmade CO2, then thanks to Count Rutherford (Benjamin Thompson) and his famous experiment to help clarify the identity between Energy = Work = Quantity of Heat (all measured in joule, J) it is evident that in comparison to solar power reaching the Earth, the CO2 effect is about as trivial as a flea on the equator jumping off in an easterly direction will have in retarding the Earth’s rotation according to Newton, when compared to solar and lunar gravity effects. Unless, of course, anyone can show me where I may have gone wrong at http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Excellent comments, in particular by SCSmith and Sabin Colton.

    I believe Sabin Colton to be precisely correct in that CO2 (and any so-called GHG) ultimately acts as a [b]cooling agent[/b], not a warming one, giving the “Climate Sensitivity” a negative value, not a positive one.

    But, as SCSmith so rightly points out, until this magic “Climate Sensitivity” can be empirically quantified, science [b]demands[/b] that it is considered to be zero.

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    Are you suggesting that the Roman Pontiff is wrong?

    This is what he said in he recent Encyclical.

    [i]“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system . . . Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it . . . [b]a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.[/b] Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The [b]problem is aggravated by[/b] a model of development based on [b]the intensive use of fossil fuels[/b], which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.”[/i]

    Here is the problem. The ~ 1.2 billion Catholics that live on planet Earth are duty bound to surrender both “mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff. [i]“This religious [b]submission of mind and will[/b] must be shown in a special way [b]to the[/b] authentic magisterium of the [b]Roman Pontiff[/b], even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” [/i]DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH 


    To these ~1.2 billion people it makes no difference what the “climate sensitivity” actually is. The Pope has spoken. Man is guilty “sinning” against the natural world and to receive redemption man must change his lifestyle, specifically his use of hydrocarbon based energy to produce and then consume things that benefit both himself and others. One particular egregious “sin” mentioned by the Pope is the use of air-conditioning.

    [i]”People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their [b]harmful habits of consumption[/b] which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of [b]air-conditioning[/b].”[/i]

    So, if you have an air-conditioner that was produced using hydrocarbon based energy that is powered by electricity that is produced by burning hydrocarbons, then in the eyes of the Roman Pontiff you are committing a “sin” against nature.

    [i]”Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet . . . for ‘to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.'”[/i]

    What good are scientific studies in the face of blind religious faith? As of today if you are a Catholic and it is not your view that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem then you are a heretic.

    Carl

    • Avatar

      scsmith

      |

      I think the Pope needs to re-learn the biblical definition of ‘Sin’. It seems the Catholic church deems sin to be a moral evil, whereas God says it is the rejection of Him, which is fundamentally different. Morals are a human invention, and infected with vested interests and what God describes as “foolishness”.

      It seems strange that the Pope would condemn the use of fossil fuels (as part of God’s “good” gift in creation) to power an air conditioner that would keep a person alive (or a heater in the opposite circumstance that would have the same effect). Is it his wish that we should suffer the ravages of nature and perish ‘naturally’? It certainly isn’t God’s, and therefore neither mine.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Laterite..
    Help me out here. How were the published measurements of CS taken?
    Measurements in a lab? or from a computer model?
    Explain the method to me please.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Many thanks for this pseudo-scientific article.

    • Avatar

      Pierre Latour

      |

      Greg House,
      I think you are engaging is derogatory name calling with “pseudo” crack. Your tongue is sticking out of your cheek. Your comment is not scientific. Further, it is meaningless.

      W Shakespeare wrote brilliant pseudo-science.

      Got it?

      Interesting article, Laterite

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Did not know you were an expert on W Shakespeare.

        You have just praised the article “Global warming attributed to CO2 emissions a [b]hoax[/b]” by Bill Sandt, which demonstrates that you have no problem with derogatory name calling, I mean the word “hoax”. So illogical.

        Are you so angry maybe because I criticized your articles in the past? It is not my fault Pierre that you believe in “global temperature” and that 33°C “effect”, which is by the way the foundation of that hoax.

        The author of this article shares your belief in “global temperature”, which I consider pseudo-scientific, so? Do you have any scientific evidence for “global temperature”? How do you calculate it SCIENTIFICALLY, Pierre? Go ahead, I am looking forward to your scientific reaction.

        • Avatar

          Pierre Latour

          |

          Most high school students in my day studied the plays of Shakespeare. I merely referenced him without claiming to be an expert, so your remark is snide and uncalled for. I already know you didn’t know. Nobody cares.

          You often make false claims, your problem, not mine. You remind me of Don Quixote. While I am not an expert on Cervantes, I have read his great novel cover to cover.

          Calling a hoax a hoax is perfectly legitimate. It is not derogatory name calling, obviously. Whose name does the paper denigrate anyway? I believe the author did a credible job explaining why AGW is a hoax, supported by many books, and you did a lousy job disproving it. Besides you are incorrect to say the word hoax is illogical. A sentence may be illogical but a single word cannot be illogical. I learned that in eighth grade English grammar.

          I am not angry that you criticized my article. I already pointed out you incorrectly attributed a belief in 33C GHG effect to me, when I took the trouble to write an article explaining why I thought it was bogus (not defamatory because I proved it was bogus, using the standard definition of the word). What you have done is criticize me for believing something which I don’t believe. It is an old rhetorical trick. That is bad logic on your part and proves you agree with me after all. Your confusion is indeed your fault, not mine.

          You consider a global temperature
          “pseudo-scientific”. I don’t know what that means because it is a meaningless sentence.

          I can speak of a global temperature conceptually, like many others do, thinking of it as some weighted bulk average (integral calculus is useful), determined by S-B Law. I have written on the difficulties of measuring it, but it exists, even if unmeasurable. The ocean exists but its volume is unmeasurable. Forces in nature are real but invisible (gravity, electric, magnetic, mechanical, chemical, nuclear). I already proved in 1997 the atmosphere system is unmeasurable for the purpose of building a thermostat to throttle fossil fuel combustion. That is irrelevant to the physics I presented in 2015.

          I understand global radiating temperature is measured indirectly by satellite spectrometers measuring Earth’s irradiance/intensity at its detector, correcting for distance, assigning an emissivity, and calculating the corresponding global average radiation temperature with S-B Law. That is a perfectly respectable method, with several known assumptions. That’s how you calculate it scientifically, Mr Greg House. Surprised you didn’t know that.

          If your position is since something is unmeasurable, it does not exist, you are in trouble.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]I already pointed out you incorrectly attributed a belief in 33C GHG effect to me,[/quote]

            You are partly right here, you did not say it explicitly, you just refuted it in a such a ridiculous way that it was equivalent to agreeing on that. Like stating the +15°C and -18°C are “two different kinds of temperature”. (http://www.principia-scientific.org/james-hansen-s-bogus-33-degrees-greenhouse-gas-effect.html)

            You arrive at this nonsense in the same article by misrepresenting the warmists calculation of those bogus -18°C. Quote: [i]”In 1981 James Hansen [1, 2] stated the average thermal T at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok)”[/i]. In fact, the -18°C is a result of a bogus calculation and means the temperature the earth [b]would have theoretically[/b] if heated by the Sun alone. Again: it is not what it is, it is what it would be (according to [s]pseudo-[/s] climate “scientists”, of course).

            Note: the -18°C is OK to you.

            Right, you make it clear that you do not believe in “greenhouse effect”, but unfortunately you effectively support its very foundation, this 33°C difference. Your refutation does not count, like I said, so what remains is the alleged 33°C difference which is the basis for “greenhouse effect”. Great job, Pierre!

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]You consider a global temperature “pseudo-scientific”. I don’t know what that means because it is a meaningless sentence. I can speak of a global temperature conceptually […] I have written on the difficulties of measuring it, but it exists, even if unmeasurable.[/quote]

            Hey, the author just used NUMBERS referring to “global temperature” and you found it “interesting” although you at the same time believed it is “unmeasurable”. You do believe it is unmeasurable, don’t you? I have to ask, because you expressed it in a sort of evasive manner. But I think it was what you were trying to say, never mind.

            So, Pierre, if a strong conclusion is based on “global temperature” bapkis, is it pseudo-science or not?

            Do you actually know how exactly climate “scientists” calculate “global temperatures” and find it therefore ok, or is it just a blind belief? I mean, you can not just like that trust the guys who sell us the “greenhouse effect”, right?

          • Avatar

            Pierre Latour

            |

            I see your confusion is diminishing somewhat. It is good we are closing on mutual understanding and agreement. That should please you.

            While you answered some of my questions, but not all, I already answered the ones you repeated.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            No, the opposite is true. My confusion has increased actually. Before you made your insulting comments on two threads recently, it was not so important to me, whether you are stupid or whatever with regards to your argumentation and “discoveries”. Now you have drawn my close attention to your masterpieces. Let me be honest with you then.

            You -18°C thing is unscientific and stupid. Your manipulation of what Hansen said is dishonest. Your obvious contradictions about “global temperature” and the term “greenhouse gas” are both stupid and dishonest. Now you can proceed the same ridiculous way but please do not blame me if I look into your writings more closely and it gets more painful. So maybe it is a good idea to close now.

            It would be nice if in the future you could focus on what is really important, like “greenhouse effect” does not exist and any alleged global warmings or coolings are nonsense because they are based on the nonsensical calculations of “global temperature”. No need to go beyond that.

          • Avatar

            Pierre Latour

            |

            Greg House
            I accept your statement, “the opposite is true”, and your admission your confusion has increased.

            Your second paragraph claims I am dishonest without proof. That is dishonest on your part.

            I see you are mad at me and resorting to name calling for my efforts to reconcile. Clearly your emotions are in charge. A sign you realize you have lost your arguments. Your style is to destroy people rather then learn or teach. Try to keep your comments to science if you wish to influence readers and believe you know something about your subject.

            It would be nice if you could follow me and focus on what is really important, like the “greenhouse effect” does not exist and any alleged global warming or cooling by CO2 are vanishingly small according to the laws of physics and chemistry, and observed data.

            To say using S-B Law to infer temperature of radiators is nonsense puts you at odds with established physics and commercial use of pyrometers and spectrometers to measure star temperatures by astronomers and flame temperatures and by chemical engineers for 50 years. No need to go beyond that.

            I readily admit there are many things I don’t know. I am ignorant. Call me stupid if you like. I would never call you that. Misinformed perhaps, but not stupid. It would be inflammatory and upset you. The only thing I learn from reading your blogs is how to sharpen my debating skills. Thanks. I am big on gratitude, kindness and appreciation.

          • Avatar

            Rosco

            |

            Pierre – you need to stop interacting with Greg.

            Greg “knows it all” and dearly loves to tell everyone.

            He once criticized me claiming that I had tried to show cold heating hot.

            He was too intellectually challenged to understand that the radiation from 2 spotlights is always “hotter” than the thermometer I used and the air temperature.

            He has no understanding of anything associated with science and simply endlessly sprouts meaningless drivel !

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Rosco”]He once criticized me claiming that I had tried to show cold heating hot.[/quote]

            OMG, are we going to have the 4th episode of that dumb show now, Rosco?

            Yeah, I remember your ridiculous experiment where you were trying to prove that a adding a WEAKER source of heat to a STRONGER one would raise the temperature of the target. Yes, physically it is equivalent to cold heating hot. You are such a great scientist. Please, continue your entertaining work.

          • Avatar

            Pierre Latour

            |

            Rosco

            Good advice. But it is such fun!

  • Avatar

    Sabin Colton

    |

    As Squid2112 said above, it converges on zero. Basically, no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can alter the climate, so the sensitivity is going to be zero.

    The key factors rarely mentioned is that (1) CO2 really only has two narrow absorption emission bands in the infrared range, with the vast majority of the range passing through the atmosphere unimpeded by CO2, (2) the ability or alpha value for CO2’s conversion of IR to heat was falsely altered (increased) by warmist “scientists by 12-fold years ago, and (3) absolute water vapor content of the atmosphere has been decreasing as CO2 increases (a la Miskolski (sp?), such that water vapor is interacting less that before.

    Add to this the fact that, in sunlight, radiative gases are saturated and both absorbing and emitting and that none of the warmist models include night time, during which there is truly unimpeded conversion of atmospheric heat to IR by these gases, and you have a non-starter for a possible climate factor. Well, maybe a cooling factor, but not a warming one.

    Yes, zero is an option for climate sensitivity.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Sabin Colton”]the ability or alpha value for CO2’s conversion of IR to heat[/quote]

      Is there any empirical evidence for this conversion? What we know for sure is that CO2 does not let some portion of IR through, but increase in temperature? Who and how exactly proved that?

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Who determined CS; TCS; TCR, and HOW was it determined?
    Where is the empirical evidence of CS in the earth’s atmosphere?
    How can one test the real atmosphere [an open system] to establish a CS for a doubling of CO2??
    Also, I thought that it was firmly established by skeptics of the GHG Theory that CO2 and water vapour are coolants. Hence a doubling of CO2 should result in cooling nor warming.
    To me, Climate Sensitivity is a fabrication that was made up to enhance the belief in the GHG Theory.

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Looks to me to be converging to right about [b]ZERO[/b] … which is precisely where it actually is!

    • Avatar

      scsmith

      |

      Do we really need to express it as “looks”. Until there is empirical evidence that it’s non-zero, the hypothesis must “state” that it’s zero. At some point, even the luke-warmers are going to have to objectively ask the question, without preconception, bias or belief, i.e. folks like Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, Chris Monckton, etc.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        [quote name=”scsmith”]Until there is empirical evidence that it’s non-zero, the hypothesis must “state” that it’s zero.[/quote]

        Empirical evidence is not always necessary. E.g. would you have any doubts that 2,000,000 apples + 2,000,000 apples = 4,000,000 apples until there is empirical evidence?

        The much easier way would be to demonstrate that the “greenhouse effect” as established in climate (pseudo) science is non-existent.

        • Avatar

          scsmith

          |

          That was my point, if expressed another way, that those promulgating the greenhouse effect need to demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that it does exist and demonstrate that contrary evidence doesn’t exist. Until then, the position must be that it doesn’t. The evidence however has already demonstrated that it doesn’t, e.g. Nir Shaviv’s latest paper demonstrating the sun is a major driver of temperature, and therefore sea levels (http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/carbon-week-the-sun-raises-the-seas). He says:
          “As an astrophysicist, I see that the scope of solar effects considered by the IPCC is very limited; thus it arrives at wrong conclusions about what causes climate change.”, and “Instead of the model simulations, if we look at the evidence we see a different story.”

Comments are closed