Among climate scientists specializing in climate sensitivity there is a clear trend toward lower and lower estimates of it, as the chart below shows. Why? Because the empirical measurements of GAT have fallen so much lower than model-generated predictions. In the chart, the dates are dates of publication (bottom axis) of peer-reviewed studies making estimates of climate sensitivity measured in degrees Celsius (left axis). ECS denotes “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” warming predicted in … [Read more...]
“Global warming really has become a new religion”–Nobel Physicist Ivar Giaever
Ivar Giaever explains in this video lecture why he rejects global warming alarming. "It's ridiculous," he says, to think we can measure global average temperature (GAT) accurately, and that we should consider an increase in GAT from ~1880 to 2015 from ~288 degrees Kelvin to ~288.8 degrees Kelvin (an increase of only 0.3%) frightening. There's much more in this brilliant lecture. But who cares what he thinks? He's just a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. And after all, he's not a member of the … [Read more...]
Validation of IPCC’s Global Warming Forecasts would Require More than Tripling Warming Rate
At +0.11C per decade rate, Global Average Temperature would rise 1.1C in a century, not the ~3C generally predicted by IPCC without CO2 emission reduction. Actual increase in the 36.5 years since 1978 is 0.407C. To wind up with 3C increase in the century from 1978 through 2077, we'd need to add another 2.593C in the remaining 63.5 years, i.e., 0.41C per decade, 3.7 times the rate so far. Anybody got a good idea what's going to drive that more-than-tripling of the rate of increase? Or might it … [Read more...]
Why do I Think Climate Alarmists Are Overreacting?
Religion Dispatches posted Jacob J. Erickson’s interesting article “Falling in Love with the Earth: Francis’ Faithful Ecology,” about a week ago, and one follower, “Whiskyjack,” chastened Catholic Republican Presidential candidates for hypocrisy on the grounds that they accept his authority on abortion and homosexuality but not on climate change. I replied: Catholic dogma holds that papal authority is only in matters of faith (doctrine) and morals. It doesn't extend to science, economics, or … [Read more...]
Estimates of climate sensitivity falling
Just came across this, and it's stunning. Those who charge CAGW skeptics with being anti-science need to take a look at this and consider carefully: Who's been trending right about how much warming comes from adding CO2 to the atmosphere? For in-depth discussion, see Nicholas Lewis, "Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation," Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Featured image from https://landshape.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/6921/. … [Read more...]
Defense of Climate Models Fails–Just as the Models Do
Critics of CAGW alarmism have for several years had fun pointing out the large and growing discrepancy between computer climate model simulations of global average temperature and real-world observations, with this graph being one of our favorite exhibits: Now Alex Sen Gupta, Senior Lecturer, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at UNSW Australia, has come to the models' defense, and John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow (note that this doesn't make him a … [Read more...]
New Observational Evidence Supports Old “Infrared Iris” Theory
About seven years ago I read a fascinating paper by Roy Spencer et al. that argued that clouds respond to Earth's surface temperatures in ways that moderate them--cooling the surface in response to warming, warming it in response to cooling. It led me to an earlier paper by Richard Lindzen that argued that, at least in a major region above the Pacific, clouds respond to surface temperature changes in a way analogous to how the human eye's iris responds to light. In response to dimmer light, the … [Read more...]
