Comments on: Billion tons CO2 = how many °C?

By: Clarence

Clarence — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 02:31:18 +0000

H D Huffman raises a very interesting suggestion – that 2011 is tracking the GATA of 1991.

If we are now at the same levels as 20 years ago (and SREX suggests little change for the next 30 years) how can it be argued that there is any URGENCY in this whole climate change debate?

Where may these comparisons be seen? Do they apply to HadCRUT land measures or to the satellite readings at UAH?

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:30:20 +0000

Harry Dale Huffman’s thesis is that there is no greenhouse effect at all.
I can’t see how we can dismiss this unless there has been an unambiguous rebuttal.

Mr (Dr?) Huffman bases his theory by comparing the atmosphere of Venus with that of Earth. We should note that James Hansen studied the atmosphere of Venus during his PhD thesis.

I am fascinated that two educated men can study the same objects and come to completely different conclusions.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:47:18 +0000

Yes, well, Mike has already waded in dependably in defence of Australis, but let me add that you push too hard one way in interpreting his comments — he doesn’t mean to contradict me on this occasion, just to augment it, as Mike suggests.

I hadn’t noticed the SST anomalies, thanks (and for the typo tip, too!). Do you have any indication of cycles that might be coinciding to cause this? Or is it more likely to be some random effect of natural variation?

By: bulaman

bulaman — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:46:49 +0000

And now we follow the Euro carbon market into the toilet.. how low will it go next week??!!

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4E7MP01A20111125?sp=true

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:37:19 +0000

I find it hard to credit that high sensitivity might lead to colder temperatures. Talk about anti-intuitive!

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:35:05 +0000

You could live with that? So could I.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:34:11 +0000

Thanks. People who keep track of references, as you do, are worth much.

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:58:11 +0000

I don’t see a degeneration of the conversation – rather, an augmentation. Australis was building upon the point given in the last few sentences. No need to get on your high horse mate.

As for your second paragraph – thanks, good point on the 20 year thing.

Then you get back on your horse in para 3. Stop huffing Mr Huffman.

By: Harry Dale Huffman

Harry Dale Huffman — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:53:34 +0000

Richard Treadgold, see how quickly the conversation degenerates when you try to focus someone’s attention on critical data, particularly on the subject of CO2 climate sensitivity? The very first commenter, Australis, simply ignored your point, given in your last two sentences, and gives you back a quite irrelevant homage to Christopher Monckton, which doesn’t even reflect Monckton’s actual belief in the value to be given the CO2 climate sensitivity–he is a “lukewarmist”, and believes the true value to be about 1°C per doubling of CO2, not 3°C per doubling. And he is wrong at that–there is NO greenhouse effect at all:

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

By the way, I have been trying for months to get people’s attention of the fact that the 2011 global and sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies are closely tracking the 1991 anomalies, basically the same point you are making here (although my observation covers rather a whole year, 1991, not just one month, and both global mean and SST anomalies). Your article here is the first indication I have seen that anyone else has noticed we are back to the temperatures of 20 years ago (and that should be “20 years” in your last sentence, of course).

People’s beliefs are all over the map, too often due to who they take for their hero or “expert” (Australis obviously believes in Monckton). Respect is hard to come by, and those who get it now are, generally, not those most deserving of it.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:27:33 +0000

Re “what scientists say”, the UNEP report obviously predates this latest development:-

Climate forecasts ‘exaggerated’: Science journal

In 2007, the UN’s peak climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would warm the Earth’s surface by an average of 2C to 4.5C, although some studies have claimed the impact could be 10C or higher.

Professor Schmittner said it had been very difficult to rule out these extreme “high-sensitivity” scenarios, which were very important for understanding risks associated with climate change.

The study found high-sensitivity models led to a “runaway effect” under which the Earth would have been covered in ice during the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower.

“Clearly that didn’t happen, and that’s why we are pretty confident that these high climate sensitivities can be ruled out,” he said.

Professor Schmittner said taking his results literally, the IPCC’s average or “expected” value of a 3C average temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 ought to be regarded as an upper limit.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-forecasts-exaggerated-science-journal/story-e6frg8y6-1226205464958

Oops, just seen Australis was already on this ball