Low Sensitivity? How about No Sensitivity?

 

image

source

About the graph….. the blue squiggly line is Mauna CO2 zeroed with RSS temps.  As we can see, in spite of continually escalating CO2 levels for 16 years, the temps have been entirely unresponsive to the levels.  

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Low Sensitivity? How about No Sensitivity?

  1. miked1947 says:

    Not enough time has elapsed to determine if such an animal exists! ( Climate Sensitivity)
    We have various qualities of “Local” CO2 AND Temperature Measurements! Maybe in a “Few” hundred years we will have the technology and a long enough record to determine if that animal actually exists or if it is a myth like Nessie and the Yeti or Bigfoot!

  2. HankH says:

    It will be interesting to see that green line take an even bigger dive when the AMO turns negative in the next one to three decades. I don’t see warming is not in the cards. They need to stop hyper-focusing on CO2.

  3. Latitude says:

    I see they are still arguing over this at WUWT, from NOAA 2008..

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. “

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, it’s pretty tedious. It is what it it…. 16 years w/o warming against increasing CO2.

      • Scott says:

        A major volcanic eruption in the next couple years could easily make that 20 years or more too. I don’t know if their paper included volcanic eruptions in their simulations though. Regardless, using the paper’s own falsification criteria, their model is shown to be wrong.

        That’s one thing that most people seem to gloss over. It’s been 21 years since a major volcanic eruption. Looking at the satellite-era temperature record, you have two major volcanic eruptions in the first half and the largest El Nino ever recorded in the second half of the records. If these artifacts are removed you’re left with something like 0.1 C/decade of warming. Now, divide that number ~1.2 to account for lower tropospheric amplification to get the surface warming rate. Should we be worried about 0.8 C/century of warming?

        So while I disagree with James’ title about “no sensitivity” and using the 16-yr span to try to show no warming (which takes advantage of the 1998 El Nino to maintain the 0 or negative trend), I won’t complain about it too much because CAGWers have been using 1998 to their advantage for 14 years now and for many applications still use it to their advantage to this day. However, its effect on the full satellite record is starting to become less and less, and in about 4 years it won’t have an effect other to increase the trend’s uncertainty. And after that, it will slowly begin to lower the trend in the full satellite temperature record…

        -Scott

      • suyts says:

        True, I do take advantage of 1998, but, like you say, the nutters have ever since 1998. And, it does include the subsequent La Ninas immediately afterward, so 1997 is probably a reasonable start point.

        As to the volcanoes, I’m becoming more and more skeptical about the assertion that volcanoes cause cooling. I don’t know if you saw this or not, ….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/volcanoes-with-enso-this-time/ It’s very rough, but, it’s pretty damning towards the premise.

        • dan says:

          I take your point…but the magnitude of Krakatoa eruption in 1883 and the potential for a super caldera eruption (Yellowstone) would probably make it a moot argument.

        • suyts says:

          Well, yeh, if a super one goes off, all bets are off.

        • miked1947 says:

          If that caldera goes all concerns about “Climate” are out the window! A good portion of the US will have more pressing worries.

  4. philjourdan says:

    It is apparent that Suyts is no climate researcher. The sensitivity is there. Give it a wink, a double blink, hold your breath and JUMP. At least that is how Bert did it.

    O, and for Ed – /sarc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s