They think it's all over! … It is now!

1.33C

That’s it!

Earlier this year, Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok put forward a new estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity based on observational data, this figure has been confirmed by Professor Judith Curry and Lewis using the latest empirical data and a more sophisticated methodology which now makes it look even less likely that the substantially higher estimates based on computer simulations were correct.
That gives a predicted range of:-

1.05-1.8C

17-83% confidence limits
0.9C – 2.5C (5-95%)

That’s it?

It now looks unlikely that the 2C limit for “harm” from global warming will be exceeded. It’s all over!
Well no! Reading the abstract, we see they were: “Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period,”.
We know it warmed, otherwise a lot of academics wouldn’t have shat their pants as they raced to tell us all how much money they should get to “study the problem”.
But there’s a big problem. The null hypothesis is that the warming we saw in the 20th century century is natural. In effect all these climate sensitivities estimate is “how much warming occurred over ‘normal'”. The result, in a century when we know there has been warming is that they will always find a positive warming effect even if CO2 had no affect whatsoever on the climate.
To go back to the football analogy, it is as if we were only allowed to assess the English football team by the appalling performance in the last world cup. Whatever statistics you use, whatever tests you perform, if you only take data which you already know shows the English team is useless, then it is very difficult to show they could win the world cup.
In contrast, if you only show England winning the world cup in 1966 (where the title quote comes from), then it is hard to have a realistic view of their chances of winning the next world cup. So, just as England’s performance cannot be judged on one world cup, so climate sensitivity must not be judged from its value during the single period where it was perceived to have been warming or cooling exceptionally.
So, whilst, this is a better stab than most other estimates, it still fails to account for the general stability of the world climate over the last 3-4 ice-age cycles which clearly show that the climate sensitivity in a warm period has very strong negative feedbacks strongly suggesting that the real climate sensitivity is well below 1C.

It’s all over for the global warming scam

So, whilst this latest figure is by no means the end of the story, there’s now little chance of this figure of climate sensitivity rising above 2C. 2C is the lowest figure that even the climate zealots could justify as the limit to beneficial warming. So, anything less that 2C is undoubtedly good for humanity.

There is now no justification at all for any of the idiotic and almost entirely useless climate policies.

It’s all over now.

It’s all over now.

It’s all over now.

It’s all over now.

It’s all over now.

It’s all over now.

It’s all over now.

This entry was posted in Fails. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to They think it's all over! … It is now!

  1. Drewski says:

    In January, Professor Steven Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, published research in Nature on the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide. His opinion on the GWPF report:
    “The report is standard cherry-picking. It offers no new evidence not already considered by the IPCC, relying very heavily on a few strands of evidence that seem to point toward lower sensitivity while ignoring all the evidence pointing to higher sensitivity.”
    Dr Malte Meinshausen, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences, has looked at this research paper:
    Even if we were to accept lower estimates for climate sensitivity, Meinshausen writes, this “only results in a delay of less than a decade in the timing of when the 2C threshold would be crossed” if no firm action were taken to cut emissions.

    • scottishsceptic says:

      Who was right when they said the climate models could not predict the climate?
      Was it you and your bunch of idiots who said we were heading to doomsday?
      Or was it people like me who said the climate models were wrong and that such high climate sensitivities defied common sense?
      We got our predictions right – we predicted people like you were talking out their backsides and that proved to be right.

      • Drewski says:

        Name two people “who got it right” with predictions made 20 years ago? Easterbook or Singer? They aren’t in the ball park, they are so far out they aren’t even in the same city.
        And even at the current rate of warming of 0.14 degrees per decade since the “pause’ started (as measured from the top of the biggest temperature anomaly of the 20th century in 1998), that still means that man will have added over 2C to the global climate in the blink of geological time.
        And in 500 years and after multiple feedbacks kick in?

        • scottishsceptic says:

          It’s in the word “sceptic”. We were all totally right to be sceptical and those who said they could predict the climate are now proven to be wrong.
          We were right that they couldn’t predict the climate – that was our prediction and it was totally correct!

          • Drewski says:

            It is too short a period to be saying “proven wrong” especially in light of the fact that the Arctic had lost more than 50% of its total ice mass in that same “pause” period. Not to mention that 90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat as are both the Greenland and CONTINENTAL Antarctic ice sheets (a volume of ice 10,000 times greater than Antarctic SEA ice). Plus the oceans are warming and they require a vast amount more energy to do that than surface temps.
            And then there is basic physics — adding extra energy-trapping gases into the environment , will unquestionably add more energy into the environment. It doesn’t have to be in surface atmosphere alone.

          • scottishsceptic says:

            CO2 is not an energy trapping gas, it is a gas with higher IR activity. That increased activity can increases absorption but it also increases emissions.

          • Drewski says:

            The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).
            In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001) What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.

Comments are closed.