The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes, every 3 to 4 years, their version of the science supporting their theory of global warming. Laboratory tests would indicate that for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature should rise about 1C. That is not really very threatening. Their theory says that a doubling will bring about a 3C temperature increase. The theory postulates that the temperature rise caused by CO2 would increase the amount of water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere. This increase in water vapor, the major so called greenhouse gas, would result in an additional 2C rise— thus when added to the 1C from the CO2 effect would give the 3C rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is their view of climate sensitivity. The warmer’s climate models are programmed with this sensitivity. And if you follow this topic at all, you know that the models have predicted much higher temperatures than the real, measured temperatures. And the gap between actual temperature measurements and the climate model forecasts keeps growing.
A 20 June 15 posting on Niche Modeling titled “Published measurements of climate sensitivity declining has a chart that compares the current research versus older research into climate sensitivity. From that posting:
” 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.
Frow Wiki, an expanded definition of ECS andTCR:
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 CO2 doubling 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.
Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR. With atmospheric CO2 now at a level of about 400 ppm and some experts claiming that the amount of CO2 will never rise to 800 because fossil fuels will be depleted by then. I don’t know how to assess that but getting to 800ppm is a long way off into the future.
Bjorn Lomborg was invited on the David Letterman show to discuss global warming. The video, below, sheds little new light on the issues, but the contrast between two global warming advocates is pretty striking. Lomborg never pretends that he is a scientist but he is quite knowledgeable about the topic of global warming. He is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming but with a difference. The difference is that he does not buy into the alarm that many, if not most, of his fellow believers use routinely when discussing global warming.
Letterman is not a scientist nor is he knowledgeable about global warming. Letterman is an alarmist. And worst of all, Letterman is an anti-capitalist, or he gives a very good imitation of one. According to him, the industrialists of the world are all in a cabal where they wont let anything get out that might improve the world if they can’t make a profit of it. I bet Letterman bought many of those kits that would allow you to make gasoline out of water—the ones that those industrialists suppressed. And how about those batteries that always stayed charged. Oh, yes, and those tires that never went flat. Cars could be so much better if Ford and GM would be forced to put those secrete things out on the market. Just think what we could do with those wave machines that David would like to work on, if only those………..
So, have I biased you enough, if so, click on watch the video.
Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist, joins the “consensus” supporting the theory of man-made global warming (AGW), but not catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). He is disliked intensely by the wamers but not because he doesn’t believe in CAGW. He gets this lack of love because he believes that the money spent in the name of global warming is largely misspent. He says the money would be better spent to reduce malnutrition, make immunizations available, better education, prevention of AIDs, providing electrical power to reduce air pollution, etc. These beliefs are laid out in the TED talk video below.
This a fascinating talk. He shows how much improved Earth has become from 1900 to 2013 and projects changes to 2050.
For those readers of this blog that follow the monthly update of Solar Cycle 24, things are about to change. For the better I think, but until the final report is released, we wont know for sure. Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations (SILSO) a part of the World Data Center has issued a Sunspot Bulletin that says:”
Warning of Major Data Change
Over the past 4 years a community effort has been carried out to revise entirely the historical sunspot number series. A good overview of the analyses and identified corrections is provided in the recent review paper: Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J.M., Cliver, E. W.,”Revisiting the Sunspot Number. A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle”, Space Science Reviews, Volume 186, Issue 1-4, pp. 35-103.
Now that the new data series has been finalized, we are about to replace the original version of our sunspot data by an entirely new data set on July 1st. On this occasion, we decided to simultaneously introduce changes in several conventions in the data themselves and also in the distributed data files.
Posted in AGW, CO2, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Solar Activity, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25, Solar Flux, Sun, sun and climate, Sunspots
The Royal Society of London was formed in 1660. The membership contains many world famous scientists such as Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Michele Dougherty (no kidding), etc. They consider themselves the world’s preeminent science society. In any event, they must certainly rank among the world’s most eminent.
A New NOAA data set is being touted as having proved that the global temperature “pause” does not exist. Examination of the new data suggests that this is a desperate attempt to remove the “pause” before the December United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 meeting in Paris. Bob Tisdale has posted a “before and after” chart for this century. (click on chart for clarity).
How does this new temperature finding compare with the other measuring systems? The magnitude of the change of the new data are incredible. A discussion of what was changed will follow after we look at how this new temperature finding compare with the other measuring systems.
I attended the “Tenth International Conference on Climate Change” held in Washington, DC on June 11-12, 2015. It surpassed my expectations. The panel presentations were uniformly excellent. While I consider myself to be reasonably well informed regarding this topic, I realized that are certain important areas of which I knew little. For example I learned many things about the way the EPA operates that makes me very angry. Several of the current Republican candidates for President have announced that if they are elected they plan to shut down the EPA and let the State’s environmental groups handle these issues. I plan a future posting about this topic.
Mainly the Conference covered global warming science. However there were some tributes to contributors who have made an impact. One interesting presentation was Christopher Monckton’s defense of Dr Willie Soon.
The entire conference is on video. It can be seen by clicking on this link
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, carbon tax, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, ClimateGate, CO2, Coal, Electric Vehicles, Electricity from Coal, Energy Development, EPA, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, Sea Level
For centuries, the “consensus science” stated the Earth was the center of the universe. In 1610 the skeptic, Galileo Galilei, publicly disagreed saying the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way. The Catholic Church leaders called this a fallacy. Galileo published his theory in 1632 and was found guilty of heresy and placed under house arrest where he remained until his death 9 years later. It now looks like the Church is about to make the same mistake of picking sides concerning the controversial scientific theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). It is said that Pope Francis will issue an Encyclical saying that World should support the United Nations plan to eliminate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It doesn’t make sense.
Posted in AGW, cap and trade, carbon tax, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, IPCC, United Nations
Updating Solar Cycle 24 May 2015 status indicates that despite an uptick in Sunspots, the trend is still moving away from the maximum to quieter times.
The May International Sunspot number was 58.8 versus April’s number of 54.4. (Click on charts to enlarge.)
The F10.7cm solar flux number, perhaps the best indicator of solar activity, can be seen on this chart:
The F10.7cm is comparable to the Sunspots chart in magnitude and direction.
The following chart shows data through the 14th of June. Cycle 24 is still a long way from minimum (estimated to be in 2019 by NASA, although my guess is it will be at least a year more) and that can be seen by the NOAA Sunspot number that shot up about one week into the month of June.
The 2015 “Climate Change Awards” to be given out at the 10th International Conference on Climate Change will go to:
Sen. Jim Inhofe, who will receive the Political Leadership on Climate Change Award, sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, at the breakfast keynote at 8 a.m. Thursday, June 11.
William Happer, Ph.D., winner of the 2015 Frederick Seitz Memorial Award, sponsored by the Science & Environmental Policy Project
David Legates, Ph.D., winner of the Courage in Defense of Science Award, sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Anthony Watts, winner of the Excellence in Climate Science Communication Award, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., winner of the Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award, sponsored by The Heartland Institute.
I know all of them by reputation and they are deserving. But I only know one of the recipients, David Legates, personally. He is a man of principal and a real scholar. He has faced real adversity from his University and from the politicians in his state. They don’t want discussion or debate. They want submission to their point of view. He has faced this opposition and carried on. And this award signifies he has achieved widespread recognition for the high quality of his work. Way to go David.