According to fraudulent GISS temperatures, Earth warmed 0.5C from 1910 to 1940, when CO2 rose 10 PPM. Since then, temperatures rose another 0.5C, with an increase of 80 PPM
So we can calculate 1910-1940 CO2 sensitivity as 0.5C/10 PPM = 0.05C/PPM
Post 1940 sensitivity is 0.5C/80 PPM = 0.00625C/PPM
In other words, their imaginary “CO2 sensitivity” has dropped by a factor of eight since 1940.
Indeed it is…
https://landshape.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/climate_sensitivity5.png
Mind explaining more what this chart represents.. and where it originates?
The climate sensitivity due to CO2 is expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year. The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the “inertia” of ocean heat uptake.
Scientists made numerous estimates of climate sensitivity over the last few decades and have yet to determine the correct value. The figure shows the change in published climate sensitivity measurements over the past 15 years (from here). The ECS and TCR estimates have both declined in the last 15 years, with the ECS declining from 6C to less than 2C. While one cannot extrapolate from past results, it is likely that the true figure is below 2C, and may continue to decline. Based on this historic pattern we should reject the studies that falsely exaggerated the climate sensitivity in the past and remember that global warming is not the most serious issue facing the world today.
https://landshape.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/6921/
Just to add a little to the above
The earth is always slowly chasing but never reaching equilibrium
The actual ECS might lag behind the TCR by hundreds or perhaps
thousands of years
Secondly, a point that never seems to get mentioned.
Since the science oracles are always chasing a (transient) transient climate
response, it never gets mentioned as to what the original CO2 concentration
from which their measuring is. Is it 280 ppm?
But more importantly, since the measuring of TCR is for a doubling of CO2
concentration, then it must be that the response to increase in CO2 concentration
is not linear
***Steve/Tony, have you considered that.
For example if the TCR (doubling) was said to be 2 deg C (I don’t believe anything
like that) That would mean for an increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm or an increase
of 280 ppm.
But then if we look at a doubling from there it would be from 560 ppm to 1,200 ppm
an increase of 560 ppm or twice as much increase in concentration for the same
increase in temp
So in general the increase in temp by the AGW’s definition is not linear
but rather logarithmic
Just Sayin’
Yes, the failing to manifest harms are even less likely to manifest in the future, while the KNOWN and OBSERVED benefits continue to increase at a linear rate.
Even if Tony used a doubling analysis of the data, it would be
today 400 ppm – 80 ppm = 320 ppm
1910 320 ppm – 10 ppm = 310 ppm
TCR 1940 to 2015 = .5 C / (80 ppm/320 ppm) = .5/0.25 = 2 C/ doubling
TCR 1910 to 1940 = .5 C / (10 ppm/310 ppm) = 0.5/0.032 = 15.6 C/ doubling.
Still about his 8 times factor. TCR must be a variable number.
TCR is a mythical beast.
How about 0.00:
http://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/article.pdf
Thank you, Tony aka Steven, for having the courage to “pull the tiger’s tail !”
You know this a dangerous sport that has to be played.
Wow… what a great find… a great angle…
How can the fraudsters possibly answer this??… Well they won’t… this really shines the Light on their data fraud…
Just read two sceptic contributions in my local paper which has kept off global warming.
Sceptics are now appearing everywhere I look.
The climate sensitivity has been zero for the past 18 years.
Conveniently you forget that the seas have been warming all that time, i.e. the planet has been warming up. Skeptic blogs cannot seem to be able to grasp this concept. Some degenerate into frank denialism of the type “satellite altimetry does not work”…
You cannot grasp the concept that the greenhouse effect works by warming the atmosphere, and if something else is warming, other than the atmosphere, it’s not the greenhouse effect. You have degenerated from frank stupidity to drooling cretinism. I am wondering if you should switch special ed programs.
You got it exactly wrong. The greenhouse effect is changing the energy-balance (radiation) between the Earth, Sun and space. We’re currently in an radiation imbalance and the planet is warming up (look into the oceans) to compensate. There’s no hiatus, that’s a frank lie.
absolute BS. There is no solid proof what so ever, just a un-validated hypothesis.
There is ZERO indication except in adjusted data, that the oceans are warming.
You obviously are totally INCAPABLE of reading or comprehending any of the data that has been put forward over the last several weeks since you got hired to be a climate fool.
You are right though, there was never an “hiatus”, it was a plateau before the decline.
It will be MIUCH FUN watching you and your bletheren as the only real climate data (RSS and UAH) start to show a decline in temperature over the next couple of years. 🙂
It will of course need a major ice age for the NOAA/GISS/CRU farce to show any cooling. 😉
I hope you have a dark hole to climb back into.
ps… you can already see that some of your priests have realised that they have made a big error backing AGW scam..
Keep watching, more back-tracking and arse-covering to come after the hilarious extreme ranting and raving we will see in the lead up to the Paris conference.
The old “radiative imbalance” garbage from cfgj which he/she parrots from all the believer blogs.
What “radiative imbalance”? What “energy imbalance?” Give us your “radiative imbalance” numbers ,cfgj….otherwise you’re just spouting AGW believer bullshit.
Exactly how much measured warming has been observed, and where? You have dodged this question every time.
The Hadfield study compared the new ARGO robotic buoys to other ways of measuring ocean temperatures in a slice across the North Atlantic. The results are fairly devastating for claims that the oceans are heating by 0.005° C per year. Hadfield et al found that the Argo network made errors around 0.5° C, and up to 2° C in one area.
I am curious as to what could make you (cfgj) change your mind about these things? If the answer is ‘nothing’, then clearly you are beyond thinking, and AGW is more than a religion for you. The answer to this question will show just how big a fool you are. The more extreme the requirement for something to change your mind (such as new glaciers forming) the bigger a fool you are. Some of us are capable of learning and forming new thought patterns based on fresh information. Others of us are less teachable and less flexible mentally.
cfgi, yep it appears the seas have been warming for a long time, but it appears not
recently. Check the historical records.
Sea level has been rising for a much longer time than has there been any fossil fuel
use.
When I saw Tom Karl’s name I figured is ships intake method was a disgrace to
science, Kind of like the hockey stick
Does it not seem extremely odd that That air temps, at all pressures (heights) have not
been showing warming and that ocean depths down to a half mile as measure by
the argo float system has not shown warming.
and Trenberths reanalysis of data which tried to show warming below a half mile was
a tortured mess which tried to find something which was not there. There have been
over 50 attempts to find it, the missing hear, lurking in some heretofore unknown place.
Some of the explanations, which I am sure you know were quite absurd.
Six years ago I had a slight belief that yeah the earth is warming, and you know ice melting, poor polar bears and the lot of it.
Then I told my daughter, who I taught and who has degrees in biology and environmental sciences challenged me. She simply queried ‘who said that?’ I replied ‘they’
She looked at me and smiled and we both knew she had me. So I set out to prove
her wrong.
Everyday I became more disgusted with a part of the world (science) that I had always
looked on as a sort of recluse
I have come to believe that human nature is what it is and none of us should avoid looking into the mirror of our inner selves.
My wife and I work with very poor people here and abroad. We were foster parents
and adoptive parents of a boy with special needs. I can tell you they (uneducated and poor) have no idea
nor do they care about anything except perhaps surviving and the energy from
fossil fuels has made their lives better. I can go on about the job creation BS by
renewables , but that would take too long
But I loathe the likes of Al Gore who fly about the world in private planes leaving their
carbon foot prints while someone like John Kerry tells the people in Africa to not
develop their farms because of the carbon dioxide, probably the greatest elixir of
life for plants Instead, they should continue to heating with animal dung.
Elitist, pathetic crap. OK, I will let my emotions cool a little.
cfgj says:
“You got it exactly wrong. The greenhouse effect is changing the energy-balance (radiation) between the Earth, Sun and space. We’re currently in an radiation imbalance and the planet is warming up (look into the oceans) to compensate. There’s no hiatus, that’s a frank lie.”
So what does a scientist and the satellite data say?
From John Kehr’s article Temperature Dependence of the Earth’s Outgoing Energy
He has several other articles on energy balance.