By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
According to UAH data, there has been no global warming in nearly seven years from January 2015 to January 2015. The new pause has been extended by three months, thanks to what could prove to be a la Niña. small double:
According to HadCRUT4 data, there has been no global warming in almost eight years, since March 2014. That period could be extended as HadCRUT data is updated – East Anglia “University” maintains the data. whether slower these days. more than it ever was.
Last month, I wrote that Pat Frank’s 2019 paper demonstrating using standard statistical methods that data uncertainty makes accurate predictions of global warming impossible is probably the best article. The most important papers ever published on the question of climate change in academic journals.
This comment prompted a group of well-paid vandals who vandalized this and other science skeptic websites to attempt to attack Pat Frank and his paper. With great patience and still higher authority, Pat – aided by some powerful WUWT attorneys – took down the whiners. The discussion was one of the longest-running topics to appear at WUWT.
Climatologists can’t really predict global warming with accuracy, not only because – as Pat’s article points out – the underlying data is highly uncertain but also because climatologists erroneously added a large emissivity feedback response and miscalculated it as if it were part of a really small feedback response to direct warming caused by greenhouse gases.
In 1850, in round numbers, the equilibrium mean global surface temperature of 287 K including a reference sensitivity of 255 K for the albedo solar radiation lattice (emission temperature or sunshine); 8 K direct warming due to forced greenhouse gases; and 24K total feedback response.
Paper after paper in climate journals (see e.g. Lacis et al. 2010) erroneously assumes that the 8 K reference sensitivity is directly squeezed by pre-industrial non-condensable greenhouse gases gave a full 24 K feedback in 1850, and so 1 K directly warms up to twice as much CO2 will produce a double-CO . equilibrium2 sensitivity (ECS) about 4K.
It is on top of that strikingly naive miscalculation that leads to the conclusion that the ECS is necessarily large, that the current pandemic panic over the imagined “climate emergency” is unfounded.
The error is huge. For an emissivity or sunshine temperature 255 K accounts for 97% of the 255 + 8 = 263 K feedback pre-heating (or reference sensitivity) in 1850. So that year, 97% of the total. 24 K feedback feedback – ie 23.3 K – is feedback feedback for 255 K solar temperature, and only 0.7 K is feedback feedback for forced 8 K reference sensitivity by pre-industrial non-condensable greenhouse gases.
Thus, if the feedback regime as it existed in 1850 persists today (and there is good reason to assume that it does, since the climate is nearly thermally stable), then the system the system gain, the equilibrium ratio to the temperature reference, will not be 32/8 = 4, as climatology has assumed so far, but much closer to (255 + 32)/( 255 + 8) = 1.09. One had to include a sunshine temperature of 255 K in the numerator and denominator, but climate has eliminated it.
Therefore, for reference, CO is twice2 sensitivity of 1.05 K, the ECS will not be 4 x 1.05 = 4.2 K, as climatology envisions (Sir John Houghton of the IPCC once wrote to me to say that the ratio of the effect 32 K natural greenhouse is why large ECS is predicted), but more like 1.09 x 1.05 = 1.1 K.
However, given a 1% increase (from 1.09 to 1.1) in today’s system gain compared to 1850, this is possible, although completely unlikely. , the ECS by the erroneous method of climatology would still be 4.2 K, but by the correction method that a 1% increase would imply a 300% increase in ECS from 1.1 K to 1.1 (263 + 1.05) – 287 = 4.5 K.
And that’s why it’s completely impossible to accurately predict global warming, with or without a billion-dollar computer model. Because a 1% increase in system gain will result in a 300% increase in ECS from 1.1 K to 4.5 K, and because not one of the dozens of feedback responses in climate can be directly measured or estimated. reliably calculate any useful value. to a certain extent (and certainly not within 1%), the origin of climate sensitivity – like Pat Frank’s paper says – is pure conjecture.
And that’s why these prolonged periods of Global Temperature Stop are more important than ever. They give us a much better indication of the true likely rate of global warming than any costly but ineffective and inaccurate predictions by climatologists. And they show that global warming is much smaller and slower than originally predicted.
As Dr Benny Peiser of the splendid Global Warming Policy Foundation said in his recent lecture for the Climate Intelligence Group (available on YouTube), on the one hand is the growing disconnect between The Communists’ loathsome extremism about climate and growth On the other hand, the caution of people like the Swiss, who voted against the proposal to cripple the national economy and Save The Planet on the reasonable and scientifically sound basis that the costs would exceed any conceivable legitimate benefits.
By now, most voters have found themselves that the Planet, which is not at risk from warmer weather worldwide, is benefiting from it. There is no need to do anything about global warming except enjoy it.
It is now clear that there is no doubt that official predictions of global warming are even less reliable than consultations with palms, tea leaves, cards. tarot, witch doctor, shaman, calculator, national academy of sciences, student or animal, case further closes down each major western industry, transferring their jobs and profits for Russia and China run by Communists, has disappeared.
The fear of global warming is over. Would anyone tell the illiterate, unscientific people who now rule the once-liberal West, against the formidable enemies of democracy and freedom, selectively, maliciously, and maliciously target them? Favorable climate fraud?
Related
