The group the 'Right Climate Stuff' says there's no need to worry about catastrophic global warming

New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon

The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.

“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.

Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.

Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.

Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.

Doiron says: “I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not – and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.

From James Delingpole at Breibart: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

PDF here: ExecutiveSummaryBoundingGHGClimateSensitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228(1)

=============================================================

TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations

Jan 2013 & Feb 2014

Detailed proof and references available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com

in Reports dated Jan 2013, April 2013, and Feb 2014

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not settled science. (Jan 2013)

2. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW. (Jan 2013)

3. It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute. (Jan 2013)

4. We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)

5. We have developed a straightforward analysis, based on empirical data, not unproven models, which bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (Feb 2014)

6. We have defined and demonstrated use of a more appropriate Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric derived from empirical data for use in regulatory decisions requiring accurate predictions of global temperature changes due to changes of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Feb 2014)

7. There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered. (Jan 2013) and (Feb 2014)

8. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. (Jan 2013)

9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics with much less uncertainty than the inappropriate IPCC Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric uncertainty range that is computed from the flawed IPCC climate simulation models. (Feb 2014)

10. ECS is computed from a hypothetical, unrealistic scenario, used only for comparison of computer model results, where CO2 levels are suddenly doubled in the atmosphere and the ECS temperature change is computed over 1000 years later. It is unscientific to base CO2 regulations on ECS computed from unproven climate models, as currently planned by EPA and DoE. (Feb 2014)

11. The ECS uncertainty statistical distribution used for justifying EPA and DoE CO2 emissions regulations is based on wild speculation, not reliable empirical data. (Feb 2014)

12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)

13. Assuming an orderly market driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives that do not emit CO2, atmospheric CO2 will remain below 600 ppm. (Feb 2014)

14. The maximum CO2 level of 600 ppm is expected to occur after 2100, probably about 2130, and will begin to decline thereafter. (Feb 2014)

15. Based on our analysis of empirical data measured over a period of 163 years, that provides a conservative TCS value of 1.6oC, the maximum expected Green House Gas (GHG) temperature rise from present levels will be less than 1.2oC (2.1oF) (Feb 2014)

16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only, not the higher sensitivity to all GHG incorporated into the IPCC ECS uncertainty range. (Feb 2014)

17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions, not climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels, such as in the ECS and TCS metrics, since a large fraction of CO2 emissions each year enter our oceans, not our atmosphere. (Feb 2014)

18. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) has low uncertainty and is a more appropriate metric than ECS for predicting GHG global warming trends over the next few centuries since much of the uncertainty in ECS results from hypothesized climate changes that take place more than 300 years into the future. (Feb 2014)

19. High values of SCC computed by EPA and DoE using their flawed computational process, result from unrealistically high temperatures causing rapid melt of permanent ice sheets on the planet that have been growing for thousands, and in some cases, millions of years. The scientific reality of such speculation needs to be reviewed. (Feb 2014)

20. An independent and objective scientific review board should be convened to review the EPA and DoE methodology for computing Social Cost of Carbon used in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Fabi

Glad to see their response, although I hate to see them adopt the language of the cAGW crowd, especially terms such as the Social Cost of Carbon.

Damian

WOW. Reality + common sense. These guys should expect the vitriol and personal attacks to begin any minute now. And as always it will happen without any facts or accompanying data.

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Generally I don’t like credentialism, the error of uncritically accepting as true what someone with fancy credentials claims, but the guys who put Americans on the Moon using only the technology of opinions of the 60s and 70s carry a lot of weight with me. I’ll put them up against James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones any day.

Aphan

They are using the EPA and DOE’s terminology.

Speed

… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.
What’s that in degrees?

Speed-
“Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.”

Ralph Kramden

“the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed”, dah ya think?

NZ Willy

I like this very much, but can they, or will they, submit to a peer journal?

TimO

…but that won’t go along with the climate crisis handbooks, so they’ll just ignore it…..

clipe

The article mistakenly says the burning of carbon dioxide.

Dan Fundo

105 models and NONE of them agree ??? What is this….model du jour ? My only concern is where they get the “global” data from over 50 years ago. We didn’t truly get global weather data until the Earth resources satellites were launched in the late 1970’s.

“… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.”
Imagine how much less than even that if we used the data before NASA “adjusts” it to show the warming they want to see. Imagine if we used honest data.

Goldie

Couldn’t agree more. If models do not reflect reality then they are wrong and either need to be modified or dumped. There can be no excuse for Governments who persist in implementing policy based on models that are shown to be wrong.

Pat

1.2% is about .65F.

James Strom

The first paragraph has 1.2 percent as the forecast rise in temperature, but later it’s stated as 1.2 degrees. I believe degrees is what is intended.

Mr. Delingpole, the Breitbart headline writer has somehow morphed “1.2 degrees C” (in the story) into “1.2 per cent” (in the sub-headline). You need to fix that. It’s wrong, and it looks stupid.

L Hampton

You need to correct “There” to “There’s” in the heading

michael hart

typo in the title? missing “is” or ‘s?

clipe

garymount says:
March 8, 2014 at 4:13 pm

The article mistakenly says the burning of carbon dioxide

bass ackword?
“ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel”

1.2 percent would be about 3.5 C (or K). Remember, temperatures start at 0K not 0C, or 0F.

pokerguy

Bunch of loony deniers. PLus they’re old. Really, really old.
(sarc)

James Strom wrote, “The first paragraph has 1.2 percent as the forecast rise in temperature, but later it’s stated as 1.2 degrees. I believe degrees is what is intended.”
What appears to be the first paragraph here at WUWT is actually a sub-headling in the Breitbart original article. Somehow the oversize font turned into regular size when the story was pasted here at WUWT, making it look like the sub-heading is the first paragraph of the story.
The erroneous sub-headline was presumably added to Delingpole’s story by a Breitbart headline writer. (However, the “burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel” flub is Delingpole;s,)

Speaking of models; What would the skeptical community think of a skeptical community developed climate model? The world has vastly changed these past few years, whereas we have access to powerful computers and fast computer communications (the Internet). For example Intel has a new chip that has 15 cores and with Hyper-threading can execute 30 threads simultaneously, and you can put 4 of these on one mother-board for a total of 120 parallel executing threads.
I’m waiting till Microsoft’s build conference in early April for more information on future computer language options before I personally begin a project that could be the foundation for this skeptical community climate model. I’m willing to personally put in 18,000 hours of work to the end of this decade to see this come to fruition. Anybody interested besides me?

David L. Hagen

Right priorities

We went into the Apollo Program knowing that our success would depend on adherence to scientific discipline, personal honesty and integrity, and a lot of stressful hard work. Then as now, we grade on performance, not credentials. Then as now, our motto and the way we do our work is “In God we trust, all others bring data.”

Berényi Péter

Now I can see how these NASA old timers could make it to the Moon and back. Current folks there could hardly make it to the mall on the next block with no major accident en route.

“Now I can see how these NASA old timers could make it to the Moon and back. Current folks there could hardly make it to the mall on the next block with no major accident en route.”
If the mall is uphill, they won’t make it because they’re driving a Prius.
If the mall is downhill, they won’t make it because they don’t understand declines.
If the mall is in the Arctic, they won’t make it because they believe it’s already gone.
If the mall is in the Antarctic, they’ll get stuck in the parking lot studying the lack of cars there.
It’s probably a REALLY good thing that Obama defunded NASA…..if these people got loose in our solar system, there’s no end to the havoc they might cause.

Doiron says: “I believe in computer models.
I believe in them too. Obviously “computer models” exist. The question is rather the extent to which those models, you know, model reality.
I have a very simple computer model. It’s called “Hello, world”. Provided that the computer running it is functioning correctly, it faithfully produces the sentence “Hello, world!”, which successfully models the existence of a world to which it can say “Hello”. There are these World Deniers who challenge the model on the basis that the world per se can not understand the message, but they’re out of the scientific mainstream.
Check out this computer model:
#include <stdio.h>
main() {
printf “Hello, world! ________/”;
}
It not only models the existence of the world, but also clearly shows a Hockey Stick in its output. I think that demonstrates why Big Oil is trying to suppress this inconvenient truth.
I eagerly await my grant money to further study this phenomenon.

Latitude

“They then used 163 years of real world temperature data”…
I seriously doubt that..it seems every historical temp data set has been jiggered to cool the past and increase the slope of warming.
“The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C”…..
Absorption bands are full…..
I find it impossible to believe that 4% of the CO2 is responsible for anything at all….
..and no, it’s not magic or cumulative

TX, Anthony.

old construction worker

I wonder when the EPA will sic the IRS on a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers like Obama handlers did the Tea Party?

David L. Hagen

garymount
Re: Statistical vs deterministic models
Appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment. Per your interest in alternative models, I strongly recommend evaluating stochastic methods before committing to deterministic methods. See:

Koutsoyiannis, D., Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47 (3), 481–495, 2011.

The non-static, ever changing hydroclimatic processes are often described as nonstationary. However, revisiting the notions of stationarity and nonstationarity, defined within stochastics, suggests that claims of nonstationarity cannot stand unless the evolution in time of the statistical characteristics of the process is known in deterministic terms, particularly for the future. In reality, long-term deterministic predictions are difficult or impossible. Thus, change is not synonymous with nonstationarity, and even prominent change at a multitude of time scales, small and large, can be described satisfactorily by a stochastic approach admitting stationarity. This “novel” description does not depart from the 60- to 70-year old pioneering works of Hurst on natural processes and of Kolmogorov on turbulence. Contrasting stationary with nonstationary has important implications in engineering and management. The stationary description with Hurst-Kolmogorov (HK) stochastic dynamics demonstrates that nonstationary and classical stationary descriptions underestimate the uncertainty. This is illustrated using examples of hydrometeorological time series, which show the consistency of the HK approach with reality. One example demonstrates the implementation of this framework in the planning and management of the water supply system of Athens, Greece, also in comparison with alternative nonstationary approaches, including a trend-based and a climate-model-based approach.

See also:
Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, 34 (2), 181–207, 2013.

An overall climacogram slope of −0.08 supports the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92. The orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) is also evident in the combined climacogram at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales suggests a big picture of irregular change and uncertainty of Earth’s climate.

gnomish

9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics
12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055
16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only
17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions
right stuff? well, it sure is stuff.
i see no mention of rights.
with friends like this, carbon tax is assured.
one hit wonders manufactured by the patriot industry are still statist mannequins, are still paid to play with their androgynous docking mechanisms and have been fattening themselves at the other end of the same trough. it’s a distinction without a difference. right stuff?

geran

well, duh….

deklein

garymount says:
March 8, 2014 at 4:31 pm
1.2 percent would be about 3.5 C (or K). Remember, temperatures start at 0K not 0C, or 0F.
That’s my interpretation also. Global average temperature is around 290 K so 1.2 percent is approximately 3.5 degrees C.
Pity Delingpole or whoever was responsible didn’t get somebody scientifically competent to review the text before posting. Same with the “burning of all the carbon dioxide” error.

geran

tic toc tic toc tic toc…
last comment sent at XX:28
be there or be square.

Thank you, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team!
Regards

I had to laugh at your description of Darryl Hannah. I guess that is just another fish tale! 😉

Don’t you mean fish TAIL? lol

John Norris

“But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.”
Well there it is.

pat

doesn’t have the catchy headline potential the MSM is looking for daily:
9 Mar: Philadelphia Inquirer: How to reduce your pet’s carbon pawprint
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/20140309_How_to_reduce_your_pet_s_carbon_pawprint.html
8 Mar: Miami Herald: Bob Inglis: Climate change is a conservative cause — really
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/08/3981103/climate-change-is-a-conservative.html
7 Mar: IOL South Africa: Tutu urges US to shelve ‘carbon bomb’ keystone
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/tutu-urges-us-to-shelve-carbon-bomb-keystone-1.1658255

Michael Whittemore

My friends brother said that he knows a guy that says the Earths temperature wont rise that much from increased CO2! This is basically what this post is saying, publish or move along.

Matthew

Nice try, really. I applaud the effort. But… the type that want to legislate & regulate us all back to the 18th century stopped caring about the truth long ago. It’s all about the power now. The power to force the “solutions” down our throats.
I am certain that they will continue to silence those they can & discredit those they can’t silence.
No matter how obvious it becomes what a colossal blunder climate alarmism has been, they will simply beat the CAGW drum with greater & greater fervor.
It’s all showmanship at this point & through the hail of rotten tomatoes the bleating just drones on & on, no hook seems to be able to drag them from the stage.
Our tax dollars at work.

norah4you

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Läs: “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.

pottereaton

deklein said: “Pity Delingpole or whoever was responsible didn’t get somebody scientifically competent to review the text before posting. Same with the “burning of all the carbon dioxide” error.”
It’s a new partnership between Delingpole and Breitbart. Delingpole had some of the best editors in the business at the Telegraph and he’s probably accustomed to that kind of oversight. I’m sure he’s not pleased with the errors. They will figure it out.

Henry Clark

As unsurprising for a media source even if one of the better ones, the Breitbart article somewhat misreports this:
They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
Not quite. Rather, they estimated 1.2 degrees Celsius warming beyond present temperatures as an upper limit. If I say I have under a million dollars, it doesn’t mean I have a million dollars. Wording elsewhere, point 5 of their TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations, is an estimate which “bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
That is seen further in the PDF linked. Moreover, the upper limit is what would be so under two implicit assumptions:
Assumption (fallacy) #1: All or the bulk of post Little Ice Age warming was from GHGs (not true).
Assumption (fallacy) #2: HADCRUT4 temperature data, plotted in figure 2 of the PDF, is honest temperature history, e.g. for instance the global cooling scare of the 1960s-1970s happened magically for no actual reason since the revisionist HADCRUT4 has deleted about all the temperature downturn which happened then.
The Right Climate Stuff Research Team shows the picture better in a different PDF of theirs which is not directly linked here on WUWT, including a solar comparison: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/AGWScienceAssessRpt-1.pdf
Anyway, if both fallacies are avoided, the fuller picture is rather the following, which implies that net warming from human activities was not even half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius temperature rise over the past century (and, if combined with more info about the coming Grand Minimum, a future of cooling):
http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg

Bryan

gnomish
I think you’re missing their point.
They maintain that the SSC should be based on empirical metrics. They claim that those empirical metrics predict only 1.2 C temperature increase after ALL available fossil fuels are burned. Thus the SCC would be calculated to be zero (or perhaps a “negative cost”, that is, a benefit). They further maintain that CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 only (in other words, don’t regulate CO2 just because climate has a higher sensitivity to methane). Since the sensitivity to CO2 that they calculate is low, this would lead to NO regulations limiting CO2 emissions. Their point is that CO2 is harmless and should not be regulated AT ALL.
As for their statement that “a market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055”, they are saying that fossil fuels will be scarce enough and expensive enough by then that the transition will have to happen, not brought about by a tax or other government action, but brought about by actual market forces.
So they ARE our friends, and friends of the republic.

They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science? Because I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years. I’ve also seen charts indicating that temperatures fell at the end of previous glacial epochs while CO2 levels remained high. I’m not clear on whether we have cause and effect, correlation but not causation, or no correlation at all between temperatures and CO2.

Alan Robertson

I’d bet money that the likes of John Kerry makes these actual NASA heroes want to spit.

Larry Geary wrote, “They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science?”
Fairly settled. The (misnamed) “greenhouse effect” mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is pretty well understood. But:
1. At current CO2 levels, we’re way past the point of diminishing returns, w/r/t warming from additional CO2. MODTRAN calculates that just 20 ppm CO2 would give us fully half of the warming we get from the current 400 ppm. The NCAR radiation code says 40 ppm, rather than 20, but, either way, we’re way past the point of diminishing returns.
2. Straightforward calculation of the warming from additional CO2 suggests that taking CO2 to 600 ppm would have only a slight warming effect (at most about 1°C), and that includes the amplification effect of water vapor (~+65%). That’s obviously not enough to be worrisome.
3. It is only by postulating huge additional temperature-change amplification though hypothetical “positive feedback” mechanisms that the alarmists can arrive at their alarming forecasts. The results of the “Right Climate Stuff” team seem to confirm that there are no huge additional positive feedback mechanisms amplifying temperature changes, which is no surprise.
Larry also says, “I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years.”
That’s true. But that only† shows that warmer temperatures cause higher atmospheric CO2 levels (mainly by ocean outgassing), and cooler temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels (mainly by increasing CO2 dissolution in seawater). But it does not mean that the converse isn’t also true.
And, in fact, the converse is also true. Warmer temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels, but it is also true that higher atmospheric CO2 levels cause (slightly) warmer temperatures.
 
(† And it also means that Al Gore’s famous chart, showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature, was massively deceptive.)

Steve O

Isn’t the problem going to solve itself after we “run out of oil?”

William Astley

In support to:
“The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.”
There are at least 10 fundamental observations and analysis results that support the above assertion. For example the almost complete lack of warming of the tropical troposphere which is the region of the planet that is predicted to warm the most due to AGW (any greenhouse gas). The observational fact that there is almost no warming of the tropical troposphere indicates that there are multiple fundamental errors in the general circulation models. The planet clearly resists climate forcing changes (negative feedback) by an increase or decrease of planetary clouds in the tropics rather than amplifies forcing changes as is assumed by the IPCC’s general circulation models. If there is planet does resists rather than amplifies forcing changes there is no dangerous warming problem to solve. (Warming due a doubling of CO2 is less than 1.2C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which causes the biosphere to expand.)
The idiotic spending of trillions of dollars on green scams that have had almost no practical impact on reducing CO2 has justified on Hansen like climategate scientific fabrication.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. … ….Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …
… However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites. ….
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Shouldn’t the models have been validated before they were used to make predictions? One would certainly think so … yet, they weren’t.