Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richard S. Courtney's comment
#1
From HERE

richardscourtney
July 25, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Mike Jonas:

Thankyou for the first in your series of intended articles. I write to point out that you have already falsified the assumptions in the models with resulting falsification of the models’ projections.

You say

Quote:Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the ‘warming in the pipeline’.

Yes, but the ‘warming in the pipeline’ aka ‘committed warming’ has failed to materialise.

IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...s10-7.html
and says

Quote:The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m^-2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 5 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century (it only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century).

Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as it is emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

In summation, your assessment has already falsified the models’ projections

Richard
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
Many more interesting comments on that thread SST. But one by Anthony Watts in reply to the post above his has me wondering as to which side of the discussion he is committed.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#3
(07-26-2015, 03:18 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Many more interesting comments on that thread SST. But one by Anthony Watts in reply to the post above his has me wondering as to which side of the discussion he is committed.

He doesn't dispute Mr. Courtneys comments at all,which is good enough for me.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
True. He was referring to the post above his which claimed AGW is a scam. He disagrees. Therefore I assume he believes we can control global climate by varying levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I agree with Mr. Courtney and would appreciate more in depth discussion on exactly what warms the oceans. It is most certainly NOT CO2 in the atmosphere.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Richard Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 348 04-13-2017, 07:50 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S, Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,371 08-12-2015, 07:04 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard C. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,483 05-10-2015, 02:56 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 3,063 05-04-2013, 07:48 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard C Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 3,274 04-17-2013, 07:20 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S. Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,903 12-15-2012, 11:16 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 3,384 12-08-2012, 01:54 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richards S Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 0 4,639 11-24-2012, 09:38 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard Courtney's comment Sunsettommy 6 8,456 10-18-2012, 06:23 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Richard 111's comment Sunsettommy 0 2,562 09-12-2012, 05:24 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)