With animation everything is possible … lol
Note how the sun stays at the same elevation above the horizon. About two dozen people told me today that they are Arctic experts and this is not possible.
Category Climate Change
Who needs an Orbiting Carbon Observatory to track it when you can model Carbon Dioxide movement?
I bet DreamWorks could do better then these guys!
40 Published papers continue to lower CO2 sensitivity
Re-Blogged from The Hockey Schtick Posted November 2, 2014
Comment from Centinel2012 —The Global Climate Models (GCM’s) “require” a high CO2 sensitivity to work, if its really as low as these papers suggest and that I believe then the IPCC is 100% wrong.
If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause…
40 published papers find climate sensitivity to CO2 is significantly less than IPCC claims
The number of peer-reviewed, published studies finding low climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 levels continues to accumulate, with at least 40 papers finding sensitivity is significantly less than claimed by the IPCC mean modelled estimate of 3.2C. In contrast, and due to the 18-26 year “pause” of global warming, recent papers finding climate sensitivities higher than the IPCC mean are almost non-existent of late. The IPCC, however, refuses to lower it’s 1.5C lower bound of climate sensitivities, or lower it’s 4.5C upper bound of climate sensitivities, ignoring the 40 inconvenient publications below finding climate sensitivities of 2C or less. The median equilibrium climate sensitivity of the forty papers is 1.1C, almost exactly what the IPCC claims is the CO2 sensitivity before the IPCC adds-in (false) positive water vapor feedback to allegedly amplify global warming by 3-4X.The IPCC bases it’s climate sensitivity estimates primarily upon overheated and falsified climate models rather than observations. Most of the papers below are based upon observations, which demonstrate significantly lower sensitivities than models. A recent paper shows why climate models cannot be relied upon to determine climate sensitivity to CO2.
In addition, most of these papers do not consider natural changes in ocean oscillations, cloud cover, global “brightening” & “dimming,” [which can alone explain all of the post-1950 warming] or possible solar amplification mechanisms [which can explain 95% of climate change over the past 400 years]. If such factors were considered, the climate sensitivities to CO2 could be lowered significantly further.
Comment from Kenneth Richard elevated to a post:
Below find 40 peer-reviewed papers published in science journals by 120+ scientists that have low (2.0 C or less, 1.1 C median) climate sensitivity estimates (with ECS values highlighted below).
[ECS = equilibrium climate sensitivity, TCR = transient climate sensitivity]
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html
2.0 (17 scientists, 14 of them IPCC Lead Authors)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1375-3?LI=true
2.0
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/aldrin_env_2012.pdf
2.0
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bengtsson-Tellus.pdf
2.0
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014000404
1.99
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1770-4
1.9
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p001.pdf
1.9
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal13.pdf
1.8
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/785/2013/esdd-4-785-2013.html
1.8
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-Lohmann-GRL2008-comment.pdf
1.8
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/5/139/2014/esd-5-139-2014.html
1.8
http://file.scirp.org/Html/24283.html
1.7
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
1.64
http://www.princeton.edu/~gkv/papers/Padilla_etal11.pdf
1.6 (TCR) [using Lewis & Curry assumption that ECS = 1.15*TCR = 1.84C]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/abstract
1.55 (TCR) [using Lewis & Curry assumption that ECS = 1.15*TCR = 1.78C]
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1
1.6
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/EARTH_1890.pdf
1.5
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3706.pdf
1.35
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/5/529/2014/esdd-5-529-2014.html
1.3
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z
1.3
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4923/2012/cpd-8-4923-2012.html
1.1
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/published_E&E%20douglass_christy.pdf
1.1
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/k76363u651167q65/
0.96
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/25/2013/esdd-4-25-2013.html
0.67
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
0.67
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
0.67
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf
0.62
http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846
0.60
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001617
0.53
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/3678681q807n8236/fulltext.pdf?page=1
0.51
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-et-al-JGR2007-climate-sens.pdf
0.50
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01592922
0.50
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf
0.40
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
0.39
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281979%29018%3C0822%3AQCTPIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
0.30
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026355/abstract
0.29
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
0.26
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DK_reply_PLA_2012.pdf
0.21
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412008001232
0.02
http://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/article.pdf
0.00
Update: Another paper not on the list above brings the total to 41 papers:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/5/375/2014/esd-5-375-2014.html
1.6 (TCR) [using Lewis & Curry assumption that ECS = 1.15*TCR = 1.84C]
Germany abandons their climate target, as their Chancellor sings to the crowd
This all sounds very much like Obama as he tells lies all the time but then he got it from Goebbels and Goebbels was a German so I guess the chickens have come home to roost
100% Of US Warming Is Due To Data Tampering – The Ultimate Scientific Scam
They try really really hard to make their theory work but they just can’t do it, can they!
World’s Greatest Climate Scientist Predicts Six Degrees Warming In The Next Five Years
No comment is needed!
Global Warming To Kill 4.5 Billion People By 2012
White House Science Czar Says The Arctic Will Be Ice-Free In Winter At -30C
No comment is needed!
…if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.
web.archive.org/web/20101205194353/http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3
NASA’s Top Climate Expert Says Manhattan Will Be Underwater By 2008
No comment is needed!
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will…
View original post 157 more words
If You Like Your Science, You Can Keep Your Science. Period.
From the Lair in Chief himself.
Centinel2012 