New Study…Climate Is Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Most Models Suggest

By 18 Comments 1,031 views

global warming hoax

Climate models are wrong once again…who woulda thunk it?

A new report published 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).

For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5.

The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.

This is one of the key findings of the new report Oversensitive: how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming, written by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. Lewis and Crok were both expert reviewers of the IPCC report, and Lewis was an author of two relevant papers cited in it.

In recent years it has become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 most likely being under 2°C for long-term warming, with a best estimate of only 1.3-1.4°C for warming over a seventy year period.

“The observational evidence strongly suggest that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming,” says Nic Lewis.

Given that the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide is at the heart of the scientific debate on man-made global warming this study is quite important. Don’t expect the media or anyone else to report on this study although. It will be dismissed because it was published by Global Warming Policy Foundation, as Dr. Judith Curry writes in the forward to the paper, this foundation is one of the few places that will publish this kind of paper since it goes against the man-made global warming Nazi’s.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

18 Responses to “New Study…Climate Is Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Most Models Suggest”

  1. 1

    Buffalobob

    My home town is set to break the all time recorded record of days below zero. Many other cities in US experiencing same record breaking temps. Hello Apple CEO, algore, obama, Kerry, McCain, et all.

  2. 4

    Mully

    Didn’t the National Weather Service predict a mild winter this year? They might want to check the definition of the word mild.

  3. 7

    Kraken

    @Bill:

    It will likely never be over because Climate Change pseudoscience has transformed itself into a religious belief system. No matter how much evidence there is to dismiss it, believers will continue to quote Climate Change scripture.

  4. 8

    Smorgasbord

    @Mully: #4

    Didn’t the National Weather Service predict a mild winter this year? They might want to check the definition of the word mild.

    They also could have checked the Farmer’s Almanac. It got it right. I never buy it, but I have read that it is very accurate. It would be interesting to know their percent accuracy compared to other weather predictors.

  5. 10

    David

    If the weather guessers on TV and at the National Weather Service have a hard time predicting tomorrow’s weather, what make these guys (IPCC “climatologists”) think they can predict what the climate will be in the future? They can’t even explain yesterday’s weather. It must be the free grant money.

  6. 12

    Ditto

    @Smorgasbord:

    The next Republican President should fire all the National Weather Service predictors and it’s leftist officers and appoint the Farmer’s Almanac staff to take their place.

  7. 13

    Smorgasbord

    @Ditto: #12

    The next Republican President should fire all the National Weather Service predictors and it’s leftist officers and appoint the Farmer’s Almanac staff to take their place.

    I’m for that. They should also fire ALL of his hires since he became president, even the over 100 federal employes he has averaged per day since he took office.

  8. 14

    Ditto

    @Smorgasbord:

    I would agree wholeheartedly with most of that, and it will be definitely necessary to cull most of the agencies of their political appointees, and review the records of others down the ranks to see which ones have a history of politicizing their offices and the staff under them. With some agencies, such as the EPA, it may be better to fire all of them and start over from scratch with new rules that only allow them to enforce Law, with no power to make up their own rules.

    Although I have to add the caveat that with the Federal employees hired, it would kind of depend on what jobs they are hired to do. The US military hires civilians for many of their support positions. Most of the VA doctors, nurses and support staff are civilians.

  9. 15

    Pete

    Bureaucracies are like tumors. Growing beyond any reasonable scale or need, until they kill the host. Until we get rid of the baseline budget method of funding and instead figure out how much money the federal budget actually has each year and budgeting appropriately we will continue to spend far more than we have as a nation. The Keynesian fantasy that you can ever spend yourself out of debt, either as an individual or as a nation must be eradicated before any economic recovery can happen.

    But when you have people still clinging to the bizarre idea that predesigned computer models showing rising temps are due to rising CO2 levels despite the fact that temps have levelled off and are declining while CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere, how can you expect people misrepresenting SCIENCE to ever admit simple financial truth?

  10. 16

    Smorgasbord

    @Ditto: #14
    I agree that any employee who is on the list to be fired would be vetted to see if THAT person, and the job they do, should be kept. Keep in mind that it is almost impossible to fire ANY federal employee. It has been tried many times, and it can take years, if the peson is ever fired. Unfortunately, the standard way of getting rid of a bad federal employee is to promote them up to somebody else, so we are probably stuck with them until they retire.

    One thing that should have been done many years ago is to put a hiring freeze in effect. Millions of people have lost their jobs, which means less tax revenue coming in, but we are still hiring over 100 new federal employees per day average.

    There is a Convention of States movement going on to limit the power of the government.

    http://conventionofstates.com/

    I’m all for it, as long as they don’t let the wrong people change the US Constitution.

    I have often wondered if the founding fathers could be brought forward in history to today, what would they think about how their country was run, and what suggestions would they suggest for the present politicians. I think something like that would make a great documentary, or even a movie that I would pay to see, if it was done right.

  11. 17

    Smorgasbord

    @Pete: #15

    Until we get rid of the baseline budget method of funding and instead figure out how much money the federal budget actually has each year and budgeting appropriately we will continue to spend far more than we have as a nation.

    There are two main flaws in the budgeting system:

    (1) When we have an election system that makes it necessary for those who run, to have to use someone else’s money, the ones who donate the most, get what they want. There needs to be an election system where the politicians can’t spend any money. That way, the only ones the politicians who win will have to pay back are the ones who voted for them.

    (2) There is no set standard for funding the government. There needs to be a system set up so that the agencies, departments, etc., that we need the most, get the money first. Their needs to be a numbering system set up, and each agency will be given a number in accordance with their importance to the USA. The ratings should start with #1, and the only #1 should be the military. After #1 is funded, then the ones rated #2 are funded, then #3, etc., until they are either all funded, or there is no more money.

    The agencies who get no money, or not as much as they want, will look at the funding for the other agencies and ask why certain things are being funded that shouldn’t be. This type of system should be a self-policing system of not funding any agency more than they need.

  12. 18

    ilovebeeswarzone

    what would those climate change scientists would have done when the northen passage was
    making it easy for the DINOSAUR, AND MALAMUTHS , and their cousins , from ASIA to cross over using the channels of the north snowy
    regions dryed from snow, being cross over by human not long after,
    they the scientists would have freaked up,
    BUT NOW FILL WITH SNOW, MANY DEBTS UNDER GROUND,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *