It is easy to demonstrate that CO2 growth is not an adequate explanation for recent changes to the Earth’s temperature. I plotted GISS vs CO2 for three different time periods 1910-1940, 1940-1975, 1975-2009. Each time period shows hugely different results, ranging from +7 sensitivity down to -0.3 sensitivity. Even the polarity changes.
CO2 as an explanation is a major fail.
1910-1940 : 7 °C for CO2 doubling
1940-1975 : -0.3°C for CO2 doubling
1975-2009 : 3°C for CO2 doubling
Given this post and others, which camp are you in:
1. sensitivity to CO2 is small, say .5C – 1.2C, e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Monckton…
or
2. sensitivity to CO2 is zero, e.g. Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Kramm, Chilingar, Sorotkin, Johnson…
& why?
It is clear that no CO2 would produce lower temperatures, so I am in camp #1.
Answer to Hockey Schtick:
1. Because there is no reason to be in any other camp. The standard backradiation-effect is common physics, well known and even measurable from your backyard with a cheap IR-thermometer.
In camp 2) almost only straw men are being presented against the basic greenhouse theory. They misintrepet Kirchoff’s 2nd law and dont look at the total system where entropy does NOT decrease. Also what they cannot explain is an extra 150W/m2 which needs to come from somewhere. What they also cannot explain is that why backradiation is measurable.
Camp 2) is really dangerous and counterproductive on the skeptic movement. Since their arguments dont stand on any kind of scientific scrutiny denying the scientific method, they sound very un-credible and here comes the problem – people categorize each other a lot and this makes also the non-greenhouse-skeptics also look very uncredible.
The debate has long been going about the climate feedbacks and how important CO2 is in this common greenhouse. And about internal variability. No uncertainty lies whether the greenhouse exists or not.
Sure, you can measure back-radiation – I get -9C with my IR thermometer and professional units find an average radiating temp of about -5C. However, a radiating lower frequency/entropy/temperature body cannot heat a higher frequency/entropy/temperature body at all. Yet the GHE requires the NET transfer of heat via radiation to be 60C from the colder atmosphere to hotter earth. (60C figure from Lindzen/Spencer)
Your claim of camp 2 being dangerous, counterproductive, unscientific, etc. is absurd. Please read Claes Johnson’s paper
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/atmothermo.pdf
and:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/climate-models-without-greenhouse.html
and 29 others:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=nicol
and explain in detail why these arguments “do not stand on any kind of scientific scrutiny”
What happened to the “at equilibrium” part of the equation?
Why have you not removed the effect of solar irradiance and aerosols from the equation? CO2 isn’t the only thing forcing temps.
Why should you remove the effect of anthropogenic aerosols when if they have a strong effect or not is not known. Strong aerosol effect is only used by scaremongers like G Schmidt, J Hansen and others to prove a strong positive feedback. Otherwise their models would go off mark very fast.
According to the latest studies no aerosol-effect is required to explain the 1940-1975 cooling much better working explanation is AMO and PDO.
“Why should you remove the effect of anthropogenic aerosols when if they have a strong effect or not is not known.”
To put it nicely, I’m having trouble understanding you.
Thanks to WUWT(tips and notes) I am now a regular reader of all the articles and responses here at real science.
Thankyou Steven Goddard.
This is simple.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi