@BerkeleyEarth [1/11] BEST's figures imply MUCH LOWER climate sensitivity than IPCC claims.
You show, "About 2.3°C of warming per doubling of CO2 (ignoring the role of other greenhouse gases and forcings)."
But to deduce climate sensitivity (to CO2), you CANNOT ignore other GHGs.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [2/11] Even if we assume that none of the warming is natural, if 30% of the warming is due to increases in minor GHGs like O3, CH4, N2O & CFCs, then "climate sensitivity" from a doubling of CO2, according to BEST's figures, is only 0.7 × 2.3 = 1.6°C.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [3/11] That's a "practical estimate" of climate sensitivity, from surface station measurements. However, if the best satellite data were used, instead of BEST's surface temperatures, sensitivity would be almost 30% lower: woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from… sealevel.info/BEST_vs_UAH_20…
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [4/11] That makes climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 only 1.23°C.
Since that's based on real-world forcing (instead of the faster rise used for the TCR definition), the 1.6°C or 1.23°C per doubling is "between TCR & ECS" (probably about an average of TCR & ECS).
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [5/11] ECS is usually estimated at 1.25× to 1.6× TCR. So:
If 1.6°C is avg of TCR & ECS, it means TCR is 1.23 to 1.42°C, and ECS is 1.77 to 1.97°C.
If 1.23°C is avg of TCR & ECS, it means TCR is 0.95 to 1.09°C, and ECS is 1.37 to 1.51°C.
@BerkeleyEarth [6/11] That gives an overall TCR range of 0.95 to 1.42°C, and an overall ECS range of 1.37 to 1.97°C.
Those sensitivities are obviously FAR BELOW the assumptions baked into most CMIP6 models and IPCC reports, which means their warming projections are much too large.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [7/11] You say, "About 1.1°C of warming has already occurred," and "if carbon dioxide concentrations keep rising at historical rates, global warming could more than triple this century."
That's wrong, for two reasons.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [8/11] 1. It assumes WILDLY accelerated warming, from an approx linear continuation of forcing, for which there's no basis. Even BEST's 0.192°C/decade yields only 1.536°C of add'l warming by 2100. UAH6's 0.134°C/decade yields only 1.072°C by 2100. sealevel.info/co2.html?co2sc…
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [9/11] 2. It assumes an implausible continuation of exponentially increasing CO2 level growth (necessary for continuation of the linear trend in forcing). But resource constraints ensure the forcing trend will fall below linear long before 2100. researchgate.net/publication/30…
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [10/11] Also, negative feedbacks (mainly terrestrial "greening," and oceans) are removing CO2 from the air at an accelerating rate. sealevel.info/feedbacks#gree…
So (unfortunately!) it's unlikely that mankind's use of fossil fuels can ever drive CO2 level above 700 ppmv.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [11/11] Since CO2 forcing trend log(level) is almost certain to fall below linear later this century, rate of temperature increase, which is already too slow to reach the temperatures you project, should slow BELOW even the current slow 0.134°C to 0.192°C/decade linear trend.
###
@BerkeleyEarth@BerkeleyEarth, do you not have have any comment on the fact that your data implies a much lower climate sensitivity to rising CO2 levels than the IPCC claims?
The temperature measurements imply TCR between 0.95 & 1.42°C, and ECS between 1.37 & 1.97°C. Will you at least acknowledge that your measurements imply climate sensitivity well below IPCC estimates? sealevel.info/twitter_Berkel…
1/8》Doc wrote, "You’re not going to change my mind."
Please do not be impervious to evidence, like trillionofcells. That would make me sad.
2/8》Doc wrote, "Wasn’t Gleick cleared of any wrongdoing?"
No, he was not cleared. That was disinformation from The Grauniad: x.com/ncdave4life/st…
In fact, Gleick eventually admitted the identity theft, and disseminating the forgery & the stolen documents (though only after he was caught & publicly identified).
3/8》Gleick never admitted being the forger, but there can be no doubt of that, either.
It was the incongruous appearance of his name in the document, with the strangely flattering description of him as a "high-profile climate scientist," in a document which said NOTHING positive about ANY other climate activists, which first drew Steve Mosher's attention to Gleick. But it was the idiosyncrasies of Gleick's own writing style, found in the forged document, which Mosher mostly discussed, when explaining why he believed Gleick wrote it.
Note that that was all BEFORE Gleick confessed to being the person who had impersonated the Heartland Board Member to steal the other documents. THAT iced it: there's no question that Gleick was the forger.
1/8. The IPCC authors expect a worsening trend. No such trend is actually detectable, so far.
In fact, here's a paper about the downward trend in hurricane destructiveness, tho I suspect the decrease might be a fluctuation rather than a durable trend. nature.com/articles/ncomm…
2/8. The IPCC authors are sly. They know hurricanes & other tropical cyclones aren't worse, but they dodge & weave to avoid admitting it. Here's a tricky quote from AR6:
"It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances has increased over the past four decades."
1/5. I trust that it is obvious to you that the most important effects of climate change are on agriculture. Right?
So if you really want to read the best relevant scholarly literature, you should start with agronomy papers. Agronomy is a much older, more rigorous, and less politicized field than "climate science," and it's the field which studies the effects of CO2 and climate change on agriculture.
@JDubbs1982 @Bidenisafacist @ChrisMartzWX 2/5. For instance, here's a paper about wheat:
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric CO2 can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
@JDubbs1982 @Bidenisafacist @ChrisMartzWX 3/5. That doesn't even take into account the direct benefits of fossil fuels.
1/15≫ Dr. Belch (why oh why isn't she a gastroenterologist?) seems not to recognize the significance of the story.
Climate activists predicted that if Earth's average temperature got to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial (late Little Ice Age) baseline it would be a disaster. But they did, and nothing bad happened.
The significance of that is that it means the climate activists were completely wrong.
2/15≫ In case you're wondering, the 4 known factors which caused 2023 to be so mild were:
1. A strong El Niño spike. And
2. IMO 2020 shipping regulations drastically reduced sulfate aerosol air pollution (The IMO says they resulted in "an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols," which equates to a sudden 10% decrease in total global SO2 emissions, which is a large improvement in a short time, with a significant warming effect). And
3. The unusual 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption, which humidified the stratosphere. And
4. Also a little bit of warming from the ongoing slow rise in atmospheric CO2 levels (though only about 25 ppmv/decade).
It's all good, though (unfortunately) #1 & #3 are temporary.
3/15≫
Q: And what was the result of all that warmth?