More PlayStation® climatological horse spit. What most people don’t realize is that IPCC documentation explicitly shows CO2‘s ability to increase greenhouse effect is rapidly exhausting.
Doubling CO2 does not double its effect or anything close to that, it’s logarithmic.
What does that mean?
Actually it’s easy:
Taking pre-Industrial Revolution levels of 280 parts per million as an example, the first half of CO2‘s greenhouse effect was delivered not by 280/2 or 140 ppm but √280 or just under 17 ppm.
To double pre-IR’s CO2 greenhouse effect would take not 4 times 17 or even 2 times 280 = 560 but 280 squared or 78,400 ppm.
CO2‘s additional effect collapses quickly, doesn’t it.
Naturally the IPCC does not try to make it so plain and they use delta forcing (ΔF) = αLN(C/Co).
Translation: the constant α is 5.35 and you times that by the natural log of the current amount of CO2/original CO2 so 2 times CO2 = 5.35LN(2/1) for every doubling.
In real terms that’s 3.7 Watts per meter squared added forcing for each doubling of CO2 regardless of whether that’s from 100 to 200 ppm or 1,000 to 2,000 ppm.
But what is that in actual temperature increase?
We’re glad you asked because we have already showed how Trenberth’s global mean energy budget, which already includes earth’s water vapor feedback, cloud effects and what have you in the back radiation figure, shows that a doubling of CO2 adds just 0.37 °C to earth’s mean temperature. See it explained here, with pretty color graphics too.
That’s why we can confidently state the UK Press Association’s following piece is just more PlayStation® climatological horse spit:
Even moderate emissions could warm the Earth by as much as 3C by 2050, leaders of a huge climate simulation project have warned.
Scientists who harnessed the power of thousands of volunteers’ home computers forecast a faster rate of warming than has been predicted before.
The models showed that average world temperatures are on course to rise by between 1.4C and 3C given mid-range greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the findings, the world is very likely to cross the critical “two degrees barrier” at some point this century if emissions continue unabated.
Experts believe warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels could trigger runaway climate change that cannot be reversed.
Almost 10,000 climate simulations were run using volunteers’ home computers. The project, climateprediction.net, was part of the BBC Climate Change Experiment.
Scientists selected the most realistic projections after comparing them with regional temperature changes over the past 50 years. None passing the quality control test showed less than 1C warming by 2050. But a surprisingly high fraction of simulations, around 15%, predicted warming by as much as 3C.
The authors concluded that a 3C rise by 2050, compared with the average for 1960 to 1990, marked the upper end of the “likely range” of global warming. The research is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Lead author Dr Dan Rowlands, from Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said: “It’s only by running such a large number of simulations – with model versions deliberately chosen to display a range of behaviour – that you can get a handle on the uncertainty present in a complex system such as our climate.
“Our work was only possible because thousands of people donated their home computer time to run these simulations.”
probably find that co2 actually causes cooling, after all the so called no1 greenhouse gas on earth
does a beautiful job of cooling the earth in the daytime compared to the moon ( no atmos gases),
Yes, H2O is the #1 greenhouse gas by volume and effect and yes, it does a significant amount of cooling, accounting for a large percentage of albedo in the form of clouds, ice and snow.
The last time they went public, they got a figure of 11 deg C temperature rise in one of their simulations. They have used the “change of author” trick here, as is so common in many of the papers on climate. Change the lead author and you give the impression that even “more scientists believe”, yet they are the same people involved, using the same data and maybe just re-vamping an earlier paper. There is even a discussion in one of the Climategate e-mails about who should put their name to a particular paper.
In 2003 Allen started the distributed computing program at Climate Prediction.net, whereby interested volunteers could download software onto their domestic computers and run climate simulations, with the results passed back to the project. The claim was that with tens of thousands of computers contributing their idle time, the number of model runs would be vastly increased compared to current practice.
In 2005 he published the first results of his attempts at distributed computing in Nature. He had been testing what effect doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have on temperature. It seems they have decided to give it another outing with a different lead author. This is what they said in 2005, sound familiar?
“The vast majority of the results showed that doubling CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of about 3C. Such an increase would have a major impact on the planet. The scientists of Climateprediction say that that is what you would expect their model to produce, and many other scientists have produced similar results. However a tiny percentage of the models showed very high levels of warming – the highest result was a startling 11C. ”
In Feb 2011, they claimed in a Nature paper that they could attribute the 2000 floods in the UK to AGW. The “Lead Author” was another one of his students, Pardeep Pall. Allen was an author, as was Peter Stott from the Met Office whose job title includes the phrase “attribution of climate change to human influence” or some such wording.
“The research, (on year 2000 floods), published in Nature, reveals there was a two-in-three chance that the odds of flooding that year were increased by global warming by a factor of two or more. While unable to rule out the possibility that the floods could have happened even if the atmosphere had been unpolluted by greenhouse gases in preceding decades, scientists believe the study brings them closer to being able to work out the real-time impact of climate change rather than the long-term predictions which are normally used. Experts could soon be able to tell almost immediately whether an event was caused by the effects of man or not.” They used the distributed computing project again as Allen describes here:
“Professor Myles Allen, a co-author of the paper, said while scientists had been more easily able to link climate change to the European heat wave of 2003 – an event which resulted in 40,000 deaths, drought, fires and crop failure – establishing the link to floods had been a longer process. He said: “Whether or not a flood occurs in any given year is still an act of God but with the help of thousands of volunteers we are beginning to see how human influence on climate may be starting to load God’s dice.”
Dr Myles Allen, has stated quite clearly in the past that his scientific duty is to provide “evidence” for lawyers wishing to take up climate litigation claims against companies and countries for their perceived climate crimes in emitting carbon dioxide as part of supplying energy, or in a manufacturing process.
He was also a consultant for a computer game called “Fate of the Planet”. The sad thing is that Allen was a PhD student under Dick Lindzen. He obviously skipped too many classes.
More details on this Oxford group here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/playing_climate_games.html
So, distributive computing increases the validity of the result?
It could. If they shared the source code, which
they probably don’t.
If you want to sound all “modern” and “netty” you run “distributed computing” models – which just takes 1 GIGO result and multiplies it by 10,000. They’re following the “tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth” – every one of those simulation runners now feels vindicated in their CAGW beliefs!
K, it’s three degrees. So what? If it was 30 degrees I’d be scared. But, even if it got warmer, we’d expect more thunderstorms to pump out the heat. But we haven’t gotten any thunderstorms. A small piece of evidence to say that AGW is bullshit.
Never have so many been conned by so few. I reckon the whole computer simulation needs to be thoroughly examined and reweighted with its variables. Every time they put the simulation through, it shows higher temperature increases, yet there has been no warming since 1998. Humans appear to be gullible fools that they can accept this obvious discrepancy in the “hockey stick” dogma which the warmists continue to religously adhere to.