Even with Gavin’s best data tampering, he still can’t get temperatures above Hansen’s zero emissions after Y2K Scenario C.
The red line below shows the latest GISS five year mean.
But it is worse than it seems. When the Y-axis is normalized to the 1960s, current temperatures are below Scenario C
But even that is worse than it seems. RSS TLT satellite temperatures (blue below) are far below Scenario C, and dead flat this century.
Below Scenario C indicates a climate sensitivity of zero.
Modern science can and will solve this problem!
The solar neutrino puzzle remained for several decades, before neutron repulsion was reported as the Sun’s source of energy in March 2001.
See: “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy”, Abstract 1041, 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conf., Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001, LPI Contribution 1080,
ISSN No. 0161-5297 (2001).
http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
Within a few weeks, 178 scientists at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) reported in Physical Review Letters a breakthrough discovery of oscillating solar neutrinos – the right number of neutrinos are produced in the Sun, but they oscillate away before reaching the government’s well-funded SNO neutrino detector !
Such are the powers of modern science.
A 97% consensus was re-established almost exactly three months after the 2001 Lunar Science Conference in March 2001:
Ahmad, QR and 177 co-authors (2001). “Measurement of the Rate of ?e + d ? p + p + e? Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory”. Physical Review Letters 87 (7): 071301. arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87g1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.071301.
What does this have to do with the temperature record?
It is really annoying doing all this work and having the thread hijacked.
Your work is greatly appreciated.
Don’t worry Steve I only look at these comments to see if I’ve guessed right on the content. When I am I award myself another biscuit (McVities Digestive with a cup of tea). I then read the more sensible comments and the next posting.
Your work is very much appreciated. But your crowning glory was the R=.987 correlation between adjustments and CO2.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/the-definitive-data-on-the-global-warmingclimate-change-scam/#comment-434263
And yes I did book mark it. {:>D
Imagine if they’d gotten their curbs, they’d be crowing that they’d worked! (And nobody would have been looking for “missing heat”, either.)
It is mind-boggling that the fact of temperatures below scenario C is not ripping AGW to shreds, but we all know why… the statist conspiracy, basically.
Three cheers for RSS and the incorruptibility of Roy Spencer. Three cheers for the Internet. Three cheers for Tony for all the hard work, and much love to mother nature for being a prankster and not going along with the con.
UAH is Dr. John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer’s baby not RSS.
On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records
Climate sensitivity can be calculated using the earth itself.
Since 1960, according to this chart, the temp went up by 0.58 C
Since 1960, according to Mauna Loa, the CO2 went from 315 to 400
315 to 400 is 27% which is 0.27 doublings
Climate sensitivity is .56 / .27 which is 2.07. Different results come from different starting points.
The longer the pause lasts and the higher the CO2 goes, the lower this calculation will be.
Keep in mind, this includes all positive and negative feedbacks to they can’t tack water vapor on this to jack it up. This is the real world, not a computer model.
Sorry I meant .58. Typo.
Doesn’t this all point to the obvious conclusion: the effect of CO2 is saturated.
Yes. Dr Happer’s talk was about the experiments and the refining of the physics that supports that.
David Burton put up an audio and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation: link
SLIDES: link
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
It’s almost saturated, meaning we have to raise the CO2 to 800 ppm to make any difference, and then 1600, and then 3200 ppm. We have reached a point where we would have to make enormous increases in CO2 to make any difference at all.
Only if you are talking temperatures. The plants would LOVE CO2 = 1600 ppm. We might even see the Sahara green again!
Also, all that CO2 only raises the temperature by a tiny bit near the surface, and not at all above the elevation of extinction (200 feet). Meanwhile, the added CO2 at the top of the atmosphere increases the radiation to space. So you reach a point where the cooling equals the warming, and adding CO2 doesn’t warm the earth at all. Maybe we’ve already reached that point (the pause).
Maybe CO2 never was the primary driver of variations in global mean surface temperature.
RTF
I thought this planet was supposed to look like Venus by now!
The claim that CO2 can even raise temps at all is more and more discredited by temps. The AGW “science” never worked. CO2 is not a “heat source”, so the 1.7 Watts/m^2 “climate forcing”, is bogus. That is why the models show warming when there is none.
As we know, their “science” is BS.
I don’t know man. The CO2 traps the 15 micron band of IR to extinction right near the ground because the atmosphere is opaque to that wavelength of IR. You better get out your science book.
I’m all about argument against catastrophic AGW, but you have to use valid arguments. Nobody said CO2 was a heat source. If you use bullshit arguments like this, the other side will call us cranks. Please stop.
“CO2 traps”–(Perfect quote from AGW “Bad Science”. CO2 cannot “trap” heat. It is a heat TRANSFER medium. Don’t fall for their BS.)
“Nobody said CO2 was a heat source.”–(Oh, yes they have!)
The IPCC AR4 report, defines radiative forcings as:
“Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2).”
(Morgan, you need to understand the difference between a “heat source” and a “heat transfer medium”. A “heat source” brings new energy into a system. CO2 does no such thing. In your kitchen, you can heat a pan on the stove. The stove burner is a “heat source”. The pan is a “heat transfer medium”. If you remove the pan from the stove, it may be hot enough to burn your hand, but it is only giving off the energy it received from the burner. It is transferring heat, “cooling”. Atmospheric CO2 does not “heat the planet”. It is NOT a heat source. It helps to radiate excess heat to space, “cooling the planet”.)
“If you use bullshit arguments like this, the other side will call us cranks.”–(If you’re right, you can expect those that are wrong to call you names, and insult your arguments.)
CO2 helps radiate IR to space? You mean, compared to the earth just radiating IR to space all by itself? Interesting. Does it speed up the radiation? Amazing.
Heat transfer medium like a pot? The CO2 is a conductor like a pot? Interesting. I didn’t know IR needed a conductor. I thought IR could just radiate. Thanks for clearing that up.
All this time, I thought CO2 absorbed IR that would have radiated to space and turned it into tangible heat in the lower atmosphere, but you say it can’t do that. What a relief. I’m telling you, it’s sure great to know the CO2 is not a heat source like a stove burner in my kitchen, by gum.
“CO2 helps radiate IR to space? You mean, compared to the earth just radiating IR to space all by itself? Interesting. Does it speed up the radiation? Amazing.”
>>>Yes, increased surface area.
“Heat transfer medium like a pot? The CO2 is a conductor like a pot? Interesting. I didn’t know IR needed a conductor. I thought IR could just radiate. Thanks for clearing that up.”
>>>I never said “IR needed a conductor”, that is your wording.
“All this time, I thought CO2 absorbed IR that would have radiated to space and turned it into tangible heat in the lower atmosphere, but you say it can’t do that. What a relief. I’m telling you, it’s sure great to know the CO2 is not a heat source like a stove burner in my kitchen, by gum.”
>>>Glad to help.