Skip to comments.Monckton on sensitivity training at Durban
Posted on 12/05/2011 9:50:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
It. Aint. Gonna. Happen.
From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Durban, South Africa
It. Aint. Gonna. Happen. This is the ghastly secret that almost all the delegates here in Durban are desperate to conceal. Paper after paper, result after result, shows that the global warming we can expect from a doubling of CO2 concentration this century is just one Celsius degree or perhaps 2 Fahrenheit degrees, not the 3-4 C° once predicted by the UNs well-tarnished climate panel.
When a journalist with South Africas national broadcaster interviewed me in the conference center, I told him the climate scam was just that a scam. He replied that that was a merely emotional argument. So I gave him the following scientific argument, and explained to him that simple though the truth is it is just complicated enough that the IPCC and the global-warming profiteers have thus far gotten away with confusing the general public, and the average scientifically-illiterate politician, and, with respect, the average journalist.
Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earths albedo magically the same as todays. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler. This is climate theory 101. So, how much radiative forcing causes the 33 C° warming that arises from the presence as opposed to total absence of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The answer again straight out of the usual suspects playbook is around 100 Watts per square meter.
Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted. Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCCs own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts.
This theoretical value of 1.2 C° is remarkably robust: it uses the IPCCs own data and methods, applied to the entire history of the atmosphere, to demonstrate just how low climate sensitivity really is. When I pointed out this simple but powerful result to scientists recently at the Santa Fe climate conference organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of them said, Ah, yes, but what evidence do you have that todays climate exhibits the same sensitivity as the total system sensitivity?
The answer is that the world is now in a position to verify this theoretical result by measurement. In August this year, Dr. Blasing of the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center in the United States quietly published a bombshell. Few noticed. His detailed estimate is that all the manmade greenhouse gases added to the air by us since 1750 have caused as much as 3 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing between them.
From this 3 Watts per square meter, in line with IPCC data, we must be fair and deduct 1 Watt per square meter to allow for manmade climate influences that cause cooling, such as soot and other particulates that act as helpful little parasols shading us from the Sun and keeping us cooler than we should otherwise be.
How much warming did this manmade net 2 Watts per square meter of forcing cause? Around 0.8 Celsius of warming has occurred since 1750, of which if the IPCC is right 50-100% was attributable to us. So the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter since 1750 (again, most of the temperature feedbacks that the IPCC wrongly imagines will amplify warming hugely will have acted by now) is 0.2-0.4 Celsius per Watt per square meter.
Multiply that key parameter by 3.7 and the warming we can expect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 0.75-1.5 Celsius. Those estimates neatly bracket the equilibrium system sensitivity of 1.2 C° that we calculated earlier by well-established theory.
So the sensitivity of the climate over the most recent quarter of the millennium is very much the same as the sensitivity of the climate throughout the past 4.5 billion years at around one-third of the IPCCs central estimate. Frankly, one Celsius degree of warming this century will simply not be worth worrying about. It will do far more good than harm. Not a cent should be spent trying to prevent it.
As President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic pointed out at a recent climate conference in Cambridge, if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received.
But dont expect any of the delegates here to get the point. They are making far too much money out of the climate scam at taxpayers expense to want to do anything other than recite that The Science Is Settled. As the West goes bust, drowned under the sheer cost of the ever-expanding State, the UN, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, the UNEP and the WMO are luxuries we can no longer afford and will no longer pay for. Time to shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.
The AGW scam is the biggest threat to the scientific method since the Middle Ages. Concurrently, Islamists are re-writing history to claim that they originated experimental scientific method. A belief in AGW will do for our society what Islam has done for theirs. The proof is before our eyes.
Lord Monckton continues to hack at the brains of the less endowed. heheh.
CO2 isn’t going to double because we find a way to nuclear fusion power well before 2101 or most of the human race is toast anyway.
[ CO2 isnt going to double because we find a way to nuclear fusion power well before 2101 or most of the human race is toast anyway. ]
Don’t really need fusion for that, we need Thorium molten Salt Reactors instead and they will give us enough leeway that we could take another thousand years developing fusion power.
All those IPCC clowns and their helpers and enablers will be held accountable at Nuremberg 2.0.
So any increase in warming due to CO2 would mostly involve milder winters, with summer staying pretty much the same. Wouldn't this be a GOOD thing?
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.