Without the amplification from positive feedback there is no crisis
Posted on 04/09/2012 1:11:07 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Without the amplification from positive feedback there is no crisis
Feedbacks are the name of the game. If carbon dioxide doesn’t trigger off powerful positive feedbacks, there was and is no crisis. Even James Hansen would agree — inasmuch as he himself said that CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks (Hansen 1984).
Consider the warming from1979 to 2007, when we measured temperatures using satellites and not corrupted and adjusted land thermometers. Douglass and Christy (2008) point out that, given how much CO2 levels increased in that time, the warming only amounts to what the IPCC scientists predict we should get from CO2 alone, from the direct effect of CO2, and not from the effect of CO2 plus positive feedbacks.
The warming trend expected from CO2 without any feedbacks at all is 0.07 ºC/decade. The trends from the UAH satellites are 0.06±0.01ºC/decade. Since the two figures are almost the same, no one needs a super-computer to tell them that this implies that the sum of all feedbacks (and the sum of all fears) is zip, nada, nothing.
Furthermore, this study likely overestimates the effect of CO2. There is clearly a 60 year cycle of warming and cooling due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the 28 year study period was the steepest part of that 60 year cycle. Hence, trends over longer periods are likely to be smaller, which implies that feedbacks are negative.
Thus the upper bound on climate sensitivity (the temperature rise when CO2 doubles) from the last three decades of warming is about 1°C, and that’s assuming all the warming is due to CO2 increases and not due to other factors like solar magnetic effects, cosmic radiation, ocean current oscillations, or geomagnetic forces. Which is much less than the IPCC median estimate of 3.3°C.
The Douglass and Christy paper of 2008 has a good discussion on why UAH is a better data source than RSS, and why both satellites are better than the surface measures. It also discusses why the pattern of warming of Earth does not fit the “fingerprint” expected of the planetwide heating that would be caused by a well mixed gas such as carbon dioxide:
Abstract
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.
REFERENCES
Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
Douglass, D.H., and Christy, J.R.(2008): Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth. Energy and Environment, Vol 20, No 1. [Abstract] [Discussion]
fyi
Global Climate don't care. It's like a honey badger. ;^)
Look at ‘em sleepin’, those lazy f&$ks!
Fred...seen this?
....post your comments if you have any,.
See #4.
*************************************EXCERPT**************************************
Current historical knowledge indicates that this planet has gone from ice ages to warm periods on a regular basis.
In fact the ice core records show rapid warming periods of about 20,000 years followed by gradual cooling of about 100,000 years.
This is an indication of NET NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
If the claims of net positive or net zero feedbacks are correct, that would mean the historical cycles will be broken. This is a massive claim that needs to be backed up by strong empirical evidence.
ANYONE GOT ANY?
*******************************************EXCERPT*******************************
It is remarkable the IPCC and their compliant alarmists scientists can predict disastrous warming to so many degrees C, and point to their computer models for back up. Then, when the actual observations do not support their predictions, they say yes but,but,but…..
KR it is a joke for anyone to the temperature is exactly where it should be, when not a single alarmist climate scientist and their climate models predicted it.
And – they can’t get their models to replicate actual observations over any reasonable length of time without tinkering with variables they can’t measure!
The models which best fit the past 30 years are those which assume natural variability warming – nothing else.
The fact is climate scientists cannot accurately model future climate with so many variables still inadequately understood. At present climate science is blinded by ‘framing’ CO2, and scientists have inadequate knowledge of all negative and positive feedback mechanisms. Combine that with the other poorly understood forcing mechanisms and we have guess work at best!
Hardly a basis for turning our economy upside down and placing ourselves at a distinct disadvantage to our trading partners.
That’s a great video. Apparently the Tazmanian Devil does care! lol
***********************************EXCERPT*****************************************
It sticks out like canine gonads, folks: The reason the IPCC exists is to blame the human race for the climate. If the human race can’t be blamed, the IPCC has to be disbanded and climatology is relegated to the back of the research funding queue because it can no longer generate taxes to pay for the gravy train, the conferences, the frequent flyer status credits and the self-congratulatory awards system. As the backers of the CO2 hypothesis become more irrational and friendless, I expect that a determined effort will be made in the next year to discredit the UAH satellite log, which Douglass and Christy point out is the only reliable, incorruptible high-technology record of global atmospheric temperature since 1979.
The fatal flaw and the telltale junk science alert attached to the CAGW hypothesis is that it has the backing of a global political movement dedicated to dismantling the Western economic system; climate scientists have become indistinguishable from the extreme left of politics and have willingly destroyed their credibility by basking in their status as radical activists. That inspires zero confidence in their professionalism and ethics. The well-founded popular suspicion is most entered the field as environmentalist zealots and regard scientific adherence to truth and evidence as an expendable concept.
In other words the SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC LEFT has been using tax dollars to propagandize the AGW/IPCC CO2 scam for the last 30+ years in order to achieve their desired IDEALOGICAL
AGENDA of WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION, LOSS OF SOVERIGNTY ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT and TAX INCREASES TO FUND HUGE GOVERNMENT GROWTH THROUGH MASSIVE INCREASES IN REGULATIONS. CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIBERALISM.
Man made climate change theory is back with a vengeance
Global Warming on Free Republic
Man made climate change theory is back with a vengeance
Global Warming on Free Republic
1) They lose personal credibility. No more promotions, conferences, and invitations to speak.
2) They have to find some other way to provide for themselves and their families (funding will dry up for scientists; journalists won't be able to get their garbage published).
3) Their dream of saving the world will evaporate, since the world was not in danger from AGW to begin with. Many of them are crusaders, and crusaders without a cause are a truly hopeless bunch.
4) For the socialists among them, they will have to look for some new way to promote the growth of government power and the redistribution of wealth. They will look for some other movement to co-opt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
