I’m not so sure – California surely tips the balance in the USA’s favour!

Maybe we are cooling. What result do you get if you take out the 3.7 Watts/Metre.

84 to 98 numbers are old, now are up to date numbers available that you can do the same with?

I’m a bit mystified as to how you got from 3.7 w/m2 as the equilibrium climate sensitivity to 0.4C and 0.2C for the northern and southern hemispheres respectively. If you use the normally accepted conversion of 3.2 W /m2/ C you get the value of 1.16 C per CO2e doubling, which is closer to normally accepted value of sensitivity without positive feedback.

—–

YOu mean like AGW, lazy?

And guess who has the most resources, lazy?
Sure as Hell not the Skeptics. We just have the greater education. One has Lots of time to think for themselves, when they are not on the government dole, trying to think for the politicians.

I confess: when much younger, I did it to a Beetle. Somewhat later, my by-then ex did it to a Civic. Much more dramatic than a “bricking”, I suspect!

It would be nice to have it emphasized that the ‘Temperature’ you are using is the atmospheric temperature and not a global surface temperature.

Looking at the SST from http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif (for the 28 May) and considering the Northern Hemisphere warms faster, things look a little cool for 3 weeks (half a Tau) before midsummer.

I think the problem with this is that the external change is “outside” the albedo effect, whereas the GHG change is not – so there is no direct way to compare the effects.

This may well be nonsense – but I’m uneasy about the comparison.

DirkH says:
May 28, 2012 at 7:45 am

Brian H says:
May 28, 2012 at 12:13 am
“And the SEPP comment is stupid. It’s not supposed to be a low-cost car; it competes with premium and luxury models. Check out teslarumors.com for cost analyses over 5-10 yrs.”

Do the analyses include occasional “bricking”?

Bricking is very hard to achieve, and has gotten much harder with even better tech and driver info. But, as Murphy sez, “Making anything foolproof is impossible, because fools are so ingenious!”

I wrote the following in 2009, and probably did the calculations in about 2002. I will not bother to try to find them – just assume I used a Ouija Board and a forked willow stick.

But my number was 0.3C – so we MUST both be correct!

Best regards, Allan

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/30/is-climate-change-the-%e2%80%9cdefining-challenge-of-our-age%e2%80%9d-part-3-of-3/#comment-125314

Allan M R MacRae (02:46:26) :
Indur Goklany (21:25:46) :

Excellent comments Indur – thank you.

Bill,

In science, first there is Hypothesis, then Theory (Evolution) and finally Law (Gravity).

Catastrophic humanmade global warming is still only a hypothesis, and I would suggest it is already a failed one. All evidence suggests that the sensitivity of Earth temperature to CO2 is at most 0.3C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm. This is not a problem for the planet.

The sensitivity might be even lower – there has been no net global warming since 1940, in spite of an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions. The only noticeable impact is that we have made little plants happy.

Regards, Allan