“This is just more evidence that the sensitivity was overestimated.”
“Researchers in Norway recently found that global warming is less severe than previously predicted by the United Nations climate authority, causing skeptics to argue that a growing body of data is on their side while experts cast doubt on the results.” [Daily Caller]
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a University of Oslo professor who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
Of course the Professor fails to mention . . . that after the collapse of the Soviet Union circa 1990 . . . temperature data from Russia and Siberia were no longer submitted. What would the result be if this information was no longer available? WHY THE DATA WOULD GET WARMER . . . and it did ! ! ! Of course the IPCC crowed about this for a decade while waiving around their over-heated books. But did the earth actually warm . . . not a chance ! ! !
“1.2 W/M2” should be “3.7 W/M2”
I don’t understand.
The 3-4.5 degrees C of warming from doubling of CO2 is a 2-part argument, both of which are flawed, to wit:
1) Stefan-Boltzmann black-body formula for CO2 doubling produces a 1.2 W/M2 IR forcing which translates into a 1.2 Degree C increase in surface temperature;
2) This 1.2 degree of warming will cause more UT humidity which will triple (!!!) the 1.2 degrees from CO2 alone.
That’s it.
But the first point is flawed because the doubling is FROM PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS of 280 ppm to levels of 560 pmm sometime between 2050 and 2100. In 2012 we’re at 390 ppm or so, which is 40% of the way to 560 from 280. So the 1.2 degrees really is only .72 degrees FROM HERE to say 2100.
Additionally, the SB analysis leaves out that the earth is not JUST a black body, but also a hydrosphere. According to Keven Trenberth’s “Global Energy Budget” (2008), 50% of solar radiation hitting the surface is taken up NOT AS HEAT, but rather as [cooling] evaporation. So the .7 degrees now becomes .35 degrees.
The second point is flawed because the presumed, assumed and untested assumption the global warming generates more UT humidity turns out to be NOT TRUE IN REALITY. There is no “hot spot over the tropics.” A Gray and Schwartz study of UT humidity from 1984-2004 when global temps went up .4 degrees C showed in fact a slight DECLINE in UT humidity. Therefore not only is the feedback from UT humidity not there, but it might even turn out to be negative — reducing further the warming from CO2 alone.
So I ask, what are all these scientists using as “their basis” for future warming? Has SB been overturned. Is Trenberth’s energy budget all wrong? Have they found the missing hot spot? What?
“Severe” is a value term meaning that there is some kind of harm. If the (debatable) temperature changes we’ve seen so far have been associated with only normal “extreme” weather, then there’s no harm from climate change and it can’t be more or less severe.
The Norwegians seem to be acknowledging, at the government level in a nation that prides itself on its Gaia credentials, that AGW is COS.