Posts Tagged ‘climate sensitivity’

Oversensitive: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming

Friday, March 7th, 2014

Source: GWPF

Chart by Dr. John Christy

Chart by Dr. John Christy

A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.

The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the recently published Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM). (more…)

Lord Monckton’s response to Jeffrey Bada

Monday, November 18th, 2013

Source:  SPPI  Monckton co2 cost effective

Subject: RE: Lord Monckton‘s response to Jeffrey Bada
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:43:39 +0000


Subject: RE: Ferenc Miskolzci

Dear Professor Bada, – You reply to my earlier email as follows (with some ad-hominem instances of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy removed):

“OK so you accept global warming but say from an economic standpoint we would destroy our societies by trying to mend our ways.  What about all the other creatures on the Earth?  Do they have any say in your economic based claims we should to do nothing?  What about ocean acidification from increasing CO2 and its affects on photosynthetic organisms?”

Let me deal with your three points seriatim. (more…)

Global Lukewarming: A Great Intellectual Year in 2011

Saturday, January 21st, 2012

Source:  Master Resource

“Mounting evidence [of lukewarming] begins to start to make you wonder whether there is some fundamental problem between climate models and reality.”
“To me, the most significant thing that the Climategate emails show is that the deck is stacked against the publication of research results that are critical of the established scientific consensus, and the skids are greased for papers that run in support…. Not a good situation for the advancement of science.”

“Lukewarmers” are those scientists (and others) who believe the balance of evidence is middling between “climate alarmists” (who tend to think that the global temperature rise will lie in, or even exceed, the upper half the IPCC’s 1.1°C–6.4°C range of projected temperature rise this century) and ultraskeptics, or “flatliners” (who tend to think that the addition of human-generated carbon dioxide has virtually no impact on global temperatures). (more…)

Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape?

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Source:  World Climate Report

Michael Mann

About 10 years ago, December 20, 2002 to be exact, we published a paper titled “Revised 21st century temperature projections” in the journal Climate Research. We concluded:

Temperature projections for the 21st century made in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate a rise of 1.4 to 5.8°C for 1990–2100. However, several independent lines of evidence suggest that the projections at the upper end of this range are not well supported…. The constancy of these somewhat independent results encourages us to conclude that 21st century warming will be modest and near the low end of the IPCC TAR projections.

We examined several different avenues of determining the likely amount of global warming to come over the 21st century.

One was an adjustment to climate models based on (then) new research appearing in the peer-reviewed journals that related to the strength of the carbon cycle feedbacks (less than previously determined), the warming effect of black carbon aerosols (greater than previously determined), and the magnitude of the climate sensitivity (lower than previous estimates). Another was an adjustment (downward) to the rate of the future build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide that was guided by the character of the observed atmospheric CO2 increase (which had flattened out during the previous 25 years). And our third estimate of future warming was the most comprehensive, as it used the observed character of global temperature increase—an integrator of all processes acting upon it—to guide an adjustment to the temperature projections produced by a collection of climate models. All three avenues that we pursued led to somewhat similar estimates for the end-of- the-century temperature rise. Here is how we described our findings in paper’s Abstract: (more…)

On IPCCs exaggerated climate sensitivity and the emperor’s new clothes

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Source:  Science Bits

Does the IPCC hold a Joker?

A few days ago I had a very pleasant meeting with Andrew Bolt. He was visiting Israel and we met for an hour in my office. During the discussion, I mentioned that the writers of the recent IPCC reports are not very scientific in their conduct and realized that I should write about it here.
Normal science progresses through the collection of observations (or measurements), the conjecture of hypotheses, the making of predictions, and then through the usage of new observations, the modification of the hypotheses accordingly (either ruling them out, or improving them). In the global warming “science”, this is not the case.What do I mean? (more…)

Monckton: Climate Sensitivity Is About 2 Degrees F

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Source:  SPPI

2 F or not 2 F? That is the question

SPPI announces that, by an astonishing 15 distinct methods, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley demonstrates in his latest SPPI technical paper Empirical determination of climate sensitivity that the global warming we can expect in response to the doubling of CO2 concentration that is expected this century will be around 2 F, not the  IPCC’s central estimate of 6 F.

Monckton said: “My commentary shows that there is really no need for any more spending of taxpayers’ money on ‘global warming’. There is not going to be enough of it to matter. That does not seem to be a message the editors of most climate journals want to hear.

Four of the 15 methods of determining climate sensitivity – the amount of warming to be expected if CO2 doubles – are based on looking at recent trends in global temperature. Warming since 1950, when CO2 emissions began in earnest, has occurred at a rate of 2 F per century.  Again, comparing the warming since 1950 with the radiative forcings, climate sensitivity works out at just 2 F.  Doing the same comparison since 1750 also gives a climate sensitivity of 2 F. And if the maximum rate of warming that lasted more than a decade since global temperature records began in 1850 were to become the average rate of warming for the next 90 years, global temperatures would rise by – yes, 2 F. (more…)

Spencer on ocean heat

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Is Gore’s Missing Heat Really Hiding in the Deep Ocean?

August 7th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

NOTE: For those who are offended by my bringing up Al Gore in this post (but are apparently not offended by Gore falsely accusing scientists like me of being ‘global warming deniers’), I suggest you just focus on the evidence I present. You are invited to offer an alternative explanation for the evidence, but I will not allow you to divert attention from it through irrelevant “copy and paste” factoids you have gathered from other scientific publications. If you persist, I will be forced to adopt the RealClimate tactic of deleting comments, which so far I have been able to avoid on this blog. We’ll just call it “fighting fire with fire”.

As I and others have pointed out, the 20th Century runs of the IPCC climate models have, in general, created more virtual warming in the last 50 years than the real climate system has warmed.

That statement is somewhat arguable, though, since the modelers can run a number of realizations, each with its own “natural” year-to-year internal climate variability, and get different temperature trends for any given 50-year period. (more…)

Weak Warming of the Oceans 1955-2010 Implies Low Climate Sensitivity

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

Source:  Global Warming

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Since the issue of deep ocean warming (below 700 m depth) has been raised in the comments section, I have re-run the forcing-feedback model for the following two observations: 1) a net 50 year warming of 0.06 deg. C for the 0-2000 meter layer, and (2) a surface warming of 0.6 deg. C over the same period. The results suggest a net feedback parameter of 3 W m-2 K-1, which corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 1.3 deg. C from 2XCO2, which is below the 1.5 deg. C lower limit the IPCC has placed on future warming.

Weak Warming of the Oceans 1955-2010 Implies Low Climate Sensitivity

Assuming that the Levitus record of global oceanic heat content increase is anywhere near accurate, what might it tell us about climate sensitivity; e.g., how much global warming we might expect from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations? As we will see, the oceans have not warmed nearly as much as would be expected if the climate system really is as sensitive as the IPCC claims. (more…)

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

Source:  Hot Air

by Bruce McQuain


SPPI Note:  Original SPPI papers by Dave Evans

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?

Manufacturing Money and Global Warming

Ocean Temperatures: The New Buff in Climate Temperatures

There is No Evidence

Reprints by Dave Evans at SPPI

A Simple Proof that Global Warming is not Man-made

The Wong-Fielding Meeting on Global Warming

Global Warming – A Classic Case of Alarmism


David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public. (more…)

Why Are Climate Alarmists Getting More Alarmed About CO2?

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  CO2 Science

As the push for binding global targets on anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose to a deafening crescendo — just prior to, during and following the United Nations Fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP15) held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 7-18 December 2009 — two groups of climate alarmists published a pair of papers claiming that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had underestimated the magnitude of future global warming that they claim will likely result from the continued unbridled burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

In these two papers, which appeared in Nature Geoscience, Pagani et al. (2010, but published online 20 Dec 2009) and Lunt et al. (2010, but published online 6 Dec 2009) calculated what they call “earth-system climate sensitivity,” based on things that they and others had inferred about planetary conditions during the Pliocene period of some three to five million years ago. (more…)

Climate Götterdämmerung

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Source:  NRO

by Editors

Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of environmentalism since it became an organized movement in the 1960s. Every ecological problem was instantly transformed into a potential world-ending crisis, from the population bomb to the imminent resource depletion of the “limits to growth” fad of the 1970s to acid rain to ozone depletion, always with an overlay of moral condemnation of anyone who dissented from environmental correctness. With global warming, the environmental movement thought it had hit the jackpot — a crisis sufficiently long-range that it could not be falsified and broad enough to justify massive political controls on resource use at a global level. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth was unusually candid when he remarked in the early days of the climate campaign that “we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Not surprisingly, after Wirth left the Senate and the Clinton administration he ended up at the United Nations.) (more…)

Scarewatch: Schneider again.

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The desperation of the climate extremists as global temperatures plummet for the tenth year in a row is growing. Stephen Schneider, professor of environmental biology and “global change” at Stanford University, said today:

  • “We can no longer prevent global warming — it is upon us. Rapidly melting polar icecaps, acidification of the oceans, loss of coral reefs, longer droughts, more devastating wildfires, and sea level rise that threatens island nations and seacoasts everywhere are clear signs of change in Earth’s climate. Disruptions of the monsoon seasons in India and China already threaten crop yields resulting in more frequent and severe food shortages than in the recent past … If we continue ‘business as usual’ our habitat could be disrupted beyond recognition, with consequences for our way of life that we cannot now foresee. Without vigorous and immediate follow-up to the Copenhagen conference and well-conceived action we are all threatened by accelerating and irreversible changes to our planet.”

Nonsense. Here’s why. (more…)

NOT GUILTY: How we know our influence on climate is harmless

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  • A reader has sent in the following interesting scientific query. Our answer to this query is long and heavily mathematical. The general reader may, therefore, wish to skim through it lightly rather than trying to understand every stage in the argument. Anyone with a little math or physics, however, will find our answer of considerable interest, because it goes to the very heart of the reasons why we know that the doomsday scenario predicted by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, will not occur because of our puny influence over the climate. Once you understand the not particularly difficult math outlined here, you will see how monstrous is the IPCC’s claim that, with 90% certainty, we caused more than half of the warming of the past 50 years. We didn’t, and here is how it is known that we didn’t. For further reading, see Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, in Physics and Society for July 2008.

Query to SPPI: I am a plasma physicist and understand the basics of radiation transport. I could, if necessary and with considerable effort, derive the warming of 1 Celsius degree in response to CO2 doubling, but, as the derivation requires no questionable assumptions, I am prepared to accept what others have done.

Where I have trouble is with the issue of positive feedback. If a mechanism exists that responds to an increase in temperature by further increasing the temperature, the temperature will rise exponentially until limited by non-linear effects. This obviously does not happen. If one mechanism, such as water vapour, suggests positive feedback, then there must be another mechanism, such as clouds, with greater negative feedback, so that the net feedback is negative. I should conclude that the warming in response to a CO2 doubling cannot be more than 1 Celsius degree and may well be less.

Would somebody tell me where I have gone wrong?

Our reply:


The 2013 IPCC report: more bias to come, especially about clouds

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, continues its very frequent meetings in exotic locations around the world, at taxpayers’ expense. Returning to Bali in October 2009 (it was last there in December 2007), the IPCC decided the chapter structure of its next major assessment report, which will not be published until 2013. Previous assessment reports were published in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007.

The structure of the science report will be similar to that of previous reports: a Summary for Policymakers, a Technical Summary, and chapters on atmospheric, land surface, ocean, and ice observations; reconstructions of earlier climates; carbon cycles; clouds and aerosols; radiative forcings; models; detection and attribution of climate change; short-term and long-term predictions; and, this time, a final chapter on sea level rise.

The inbuilt prejudice that has been a feature of the IPCC since its foundation is evident throughout the chapter structure. In particular, even though by 2013 the IPCC will have been in existence for a quarter of a century since its foundation in 1988, there will be no review of previous IPCC forecasts to determine the extent of their accuracy, still less to reveal that thrice the IPCC has been required to trim down its temperature projections, as the unfolding failure of the climate to warm as predicted causes a rethink. (more…)

Answer to an environmental campaigner

Friday, December 11th, 2009

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Dear campaigner, – You write that, since humankind is adversely affecting the environment in various ways, humankind must also be adversely affecting the climate. Of course, this does not follow. It is a particular instance of the fundamental logical fallacy of relevance commonly known as the non sequitur.

 Other Aristotelian fallacies commonly deployed by those advancing the alarmist argument are the argumentum ad populum or headcount fallacy (“there’s a consensus, so the consensus must be true”); and the argumentum ad verecundiam or reputation fallacy (“the IPCC and various august national scientific societies say “global warming” is mostly our fault, and they have a good reputation, so they must be telling the truth”). Any Classically-trained mind would at once dismiss these and many similar illogicalities as unworthy to be used as foundations for any valid conclusion.