Note:
This article
is about
real science.
You won't enjoy it
if your primary interest
is "climate change",
which consists of
wild guess predictions
of the future climate,
mainly intended
to scare people.
Modern climate "science"
is junk science, which
I accurately describe as:
"Computer game
climate astrology",
If you enjoy scary
climate fairy tales,
they are splattered
everywhere in the
mainstream media.
But those, scary
wild guess predictions
of the future climate,
are not real science.
That fact
is obvious
after over
three decades
of wrong
predictions,
from the
computer
games!
You won't find
junk science
here, because
I have no interest
in writing fiction.
The climate's sensitivity
to carbon dioxide, or CO2,
is the amount of warming
that would occur
following a doubling
of the atmospheric
CO2 level.
No one knows what
the climate sensitivity is.
But many people
falsely claim
they do know.
Even when what
they "know" is
contradicted by
the actual,
measured
global warming
since 1950 !
In fact, there's no
scientific proof that CO2
will warm the atmosphere
at all, because:
(1)
That's only
an assumption,
based on
closed system
laboratory
experiments,
that suggest CO2
SHOULD cause
mild warming
in the atmosphere,
and
(2)
The temperature record
since 1950 reflects only
one period of mild
global warming,
from 1975 to 2003,
which could have had
"natural causes",
not including CO2.
That warming period
was very similar to
another warming period,
from 1910 to 1940, said to
have had "natural causes".
There is no
scientific proof
that the
1975 to 2003
warming period
was caused by
CO2, or other
greenhouse gases,
rather than having
"natural causes",
just like the
1910 to 1940
warming period.
The worst case
estimate for
CO2 greenhouse
warming:
You start
the estimate
by assuming 100%
of the post-1950
global warming
was caused
by CO2:
(a)
You blame
all the warming
since 1950 on CO2
( with no scientific
proof that ANY
of the warming
was actually
caused by CO2. )
(b)
Then you
extrapolate
the warming rate
since 1950
indefinitely
into the future.
The overall
warming rate
since 1950
happens to be
similar to
what laboratory
experiments on CO2
( infrared spectroscopy )
had suggested.
SUMMARY:
Assuming CO2 in the air
continues to increase
at about 2 ppm per year,
the expected global warming
( of the average temperature ),
based on the actual
warming rate since 1950,
would be only +1 degree C.
in the next 200 years!
In plain English,
that would be mild, harmless
global warming -- nothing to
worry about ... and that's
a worst case estimate for CO2,
where 100% of the warming
since 1950 is blamed
only on CO2 g --
( the actual percentage
of warming from CO2
is unknown -- could be
anywhere from 0% to 100%,
... and the UN's IPCC
"climate politics group"
claims "over 50%"
-- a wild guess based on
no real science at all ! ).
Equilibrium
climate sensitivity (ECS),
is the global average
surface temperature
change caused by
a doubling of
atmospheric CO2
... following the
passage of time
( possibly centuries )
required for the
atmosphere
and oceans
to return to
"equilibrium".
Transient
climate sensitivity (TCS)
is the global average
surface temperature
change caused by
a doubling of
atmospheric CO2
over a period
of 70 years.
Both metrics
typically assume
a pre-industrial level
of CO2 as the basis
of the calculation
( e.g.; 280 ppm x 2 = 560 ppm ).
( ppm = parts per million )
A 1979 report published by
the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences was called
The Charney Report
(NRC, 1979).
The authors
speculated
that global warming
from increased
CO2 in the air
would be mild,
but they also
speculated about
the existence
of a water vapor
positive feedback,
that would triple
the warming effect
of CO2 alone.
Assuming
their unproven,
and never measured,
positive feedback,
was real,
doubling the CO2 level
plus that
positive feedback,
was wild guessed
in the Charney Report,
to cause +3 degrees C.
of global warming,
+/- 1.5 degrees C.
That wild guess from 1979
was never changed
-- it is still used today !
In "AR5", the IPCC's
Fifth Assessment Report,
ECS was
claimed to be in
“a range of
+2°C to +4.5°C,
with the CMIP5
computer model
average of +3.2°C”
(IPCC, 2013, p. 83).
In my opinion,
+3.2 degrees C.
is almost
the same as the
+3 degrees C.
from the 1979
Charney Report.
The IPCC's
Summary for
Policymakers
( written for
politicians,
who actually
control the
final edit ),
claims an ECS
“in the range of
+1.5°C to +4.5°C”.,
which is
exactly the same
as the 1979
Charney Report
( +3.0 +/- 1.5 degrees C.,
or +1.5°C to +4.5°C” )
Equilibrium
climate sensitivity (ECS)
is one of the
most important
variables
in climate science.
But the UN's
IPCC estimate
of a ~3°C ECS
is not based on
real-world data.
And the
IPCC’s estimate
of ECS is obviously
far too high.
Christy and McNider (2017),
a peer-reviewed study,
is one example
of the evidence
contradicting the IPCC
The study relies on
weather satellite
temperature data,
and claims a
transient climate
response (TCS)
less than half
of the average
of the IPCC
climate models,
But the IPCC
always ignores
physical evidence
( actual global
temperature
measurements )
that climate sensitivity
is much lower than
its models assume.
Real climate science
has a lot of unknowns.
No one actually knows:
(1)
How much CO is emitted
into the atmosphere,
(2)
How long CO2 stays in
the atmosphere, and
(3)
The climate sensitivity
to CO2 ( and that number
may be unknowable
in our lifetimes ! )
Real science
can be boring.
Real science
has many
unknowns,
and no scary
predictions
of the future.
Junk science,
entertains us
with many scary
fairy tales -- many
predictions of a future
climate catastrophe.
Scary predictions
have been made
in every year
since the 1960s,
( reminding me
of religious nuts
who keep predicting
the end of the world ! )
How many decades
of wrong predictions
of climate doom
do you need to hear,
before you stop
believing predictions,
and stop worrying
about the claims of
a coming climate
catastrophe ?
When I started reading
about climate science
in 1997, it took me
only one day
to conclude
that the 100-year
climate climate
predictions were
nothing more than
wild guess speculations.
( aka; complete nonsense ).