The collapse of arguments for high climate sensitivity

Guest essay by Dr Doug Hoyt

In the past few years, three articles have come out that, taken together, lead one to conclude that climate sensitivity is very low, being less than 1 C for a CO2 doubling compared to the 3 C figure favored by the IPCC.

The first article is by Levitus et al (2005). They conclude that the oceans warmed by 0.06 C between 1948 and 1998. It represented an increase in heat content of 2 x 10^23 joules.

In 2006, Lyman et al. showed that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 with a net loss of energy of 0.32 x 10^23 joules. Climate models do not predict or allow for such cooling of the oceans.

In 2007, Gouretski and Koltermann showed that the early heat content measurements were incorrect because they did not take into account changes in instrumentation. They concluded that between 1955 and 1996 that the oceans only gained 1.28 x 10^23 joules with an uncertainty of 0.8 x 10^23 joules. Essentially the earlier Levitus paper was wrong.

Combining the Lyman and Gouretski papers, the net ocean heat content between 1955 and 2005 seems to be only 0.98 x 10^23 joules with an error of (0.8 + 0.11) x 10^23 joules or 0.91 x 10^23 joules, adding the error terms of the two papers. The net heat content change is therefore essentially statistically indistinguishable from zero. The net warming of the ocean from 1948 to the present seems to be only 0.03 +/- 0.03 C.

The corresponding net radiative imbalance is about 0.1 W/m^2, well below the model predictions which equal 0.85 W/m^2 for 1993 to 2003 (Hansen et al., 2005). Instead of a climate sensitivity of 3 C for a CO2 doubling, the climate sensitivity is only about 0.4 C. There is little or no energy “in the pipeline” and thus a good reason to believe that all the observed warming of the atmosphere has already occurred.
Continue reading The collapse of arguments for high climate sensitivity

Huge variations now between the 3 main global T datasets

The UKMO Hadley Centre is taking a more prominent role now in IPCC global temperature compilation. Compiling “global warming”.

Just at a time when the IPCC is “releasing” its version 4 masterwork in its own restrictive and controlling way, it is fascinating to compare 2005 global T anomaly maps for three major climate groups.

Bureau of Meteorology gets Alice Springs forecast horribly wrong

On the 12 Jan the Darwin BoM said (read further below) that the then “monsoon trough” would move north leaving Alice Springs dry. I watched the BoM website radar and satellite images and there was rain on the Monday and the clouds on the satellite image seemed to hang around the general vicinity of the Alice all week, then later in the week it rained so much the usually dry Todd River ran a banker. See map of Australian rainfall for week ended 20 Jan 2007.

Poor old BoM, another trick they could not take.

Continue reading Bureau of Meteorology gets Alice Springs forecast horribly wrong

Global Warmers call for sceptical meteorologists to be “Decertified”

The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen has called for decertifying AMS broadcasters who denied global warming was real. There have been over a thousand comments to The Weather Channel (TWC) about this.

I would say this is just a rare misjudged public comment and that discrimination against sceptics has been going on quietly, behind the scenes, for decades and I am not talking about TWC here. It might take the form of threats to tenured positions, difficulty publishing worthy papers critical of IPCC science, difficulties attracting funding that is not for pro-IPCC science, just general quiet slander.
Continue reading Global Warmers call for sceptical meteorologists to be “Decertified”

Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations