New study devalues carbon dioxide again


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of science: A new study now suggests that previous climate models significantly over-estimated the effect increased carbon dioxide has on the climate.

Lewis co-authored a report with science writer Marcel Crok earlier this year that found many climate models running hot and overestimating climate sensitivity by 40 to 50 percent. The paper also criticized the IPCC for trying to hide the climate’s weaker response to carbon dioxide in its 2013 report by not giving a central climate sensitivity estimate.

Judith Curry, one of the co-authors, was also very quick to note that this result is by far not the final word. “There remains considerable meta uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity, including how the problem is even framed.”

Of course, if you are a global warming activist and communist, none of these minor details matter. Revolution for the climate is a must!

7 comments

  • Jake

    Are any of these global warming climate models peer reviewed?

    The science behind every global warming prediction has uniformly been bad. It really supports the idea that green is the new red.

  • Max

    Yes, the green movement has turned out to be a watermelon. Red to the core.

    The Light from the sun that reacts with carbon dioxide is a small percentage of the sun’s total energy spectrum. This small amount of energy that resonates with carbon dioxide (700 nm) must find It first. Carbon dioxide is less than one half of one 10th of 1% of the atmosphere! That’s one chance in 2,500 that a photon at the right wavelength will warm CO2 molecule for a fraction of a second…
    They say that “once the carbon is heated during the day, it keeps the earth warm at night”.
    It is well documented the carbon can hold its heat no longer than any other atom, it is not magic. It is not special. If you breathe into a bag and hit it with a infrared thermometer, it is a race to see if you can get a temperature variation reading before the bag is completely cooled off.
    There are no science experiments that prove the extraordinary claims attributed to carbon dioxide.
    The bottom line about global warming is that no scientist when offered the choice between global cooling and global warming has chosen an Ice Age !!! There is no upside to global cooling, but on the other hand the benefits from global warming outweigh the negatives 10 to 1. (Scientists during the 80s completed a survey asking what the upsides and downsides were to global warming. As you know the only results of that study that was published was the downsides)

  • Cotour

    All climate computer models work but only when you have “scientists” willing to make them work.

  • Max

    Dishonest computer models start out with the results wanted to be realized first. Then the computer is programmed with the data that fits those results. (The hockey stick for example) As they say, garbage in garbage out. A computer model is only as good as the interpreter of the data.
    Cotour Is correct, any scientist who puts so much effort and time into getting the science right would be proud to share the data and how there conclusions were made. The facts will stand on their own.
    Here is an example of my favorite computer model.
    A 30 mile an hour speed limit sign with built-in radar and camera is installed on a neighborhood street. A Volkswagen is monitored doing 31 mph. The next day the same car was doing 32 miles an hour. The third day 33 miles an hour. This data was entered into a computer and was calculated that as little as 100 days this car would be exceeding 133 miles an hour!
    But why stop there, let’s do a longer range analysis.
    In six years, this car will be traveling so fast that if it hits a bump it will fly right into outerspace and cause a danger to satellites and the ISS space station. If he reenters over China or Russia it could be mistaken as a ballistic missile and cause World War III. Millions will die and the world will be in a nuclear winter (or summer)
    Something must be done NOW to save the world, we must stop this madman and other men like him!

    My math is very close to the truth and Computer model accurate, conclusions made are not based on reality. But they do sound familiar, don’t they?
    In the past they used dice, tarot cards, tea leaves, bones, and crystal balls to predict the future. All of these once science methods have been digitized and are currently being used by modern science to forecast what will happen in the near future, and hundreds of years from now…
    The only method that has proven itself is the one used by the farmers almanac. It doesn’t claim to be right most of the time but it’s prophecies have been right more than any other scientific method.

  • Cotour

    The problem with this issue is that there is merit to the argument, but the mass of the argument / issue is pollution in general and the logical, intuitive and emotional conclusions that can be arrived at related to pollution. Where they go off the rails, and they do this now as a purposeful strategy, it goes into unreasonable and unsupportable “science” driven by what is recognized now as a powerful political agenda of the left represented as logical and reasonable.

    Is CO2 the quantifiable metric by which to measure a scientific theory or is it a simple all encompassing symbol and focal point that the everyday man and woman frustrated with the state of the world and their impotency related to it can emotionally identify with? In other words a political cause and tool.

  • Steve

    Max, I like your traffic radar/computer model analogy and will remember that when talking with the warminista’s. AFAIK not one computer model predicted the “pause” in warming.

  • Steve

    You are correct Cotour, one of the first comments I hear from the blissfully unaware types is: “well, isn’t it better to have a cleaner planet no matter what?” The Warminista’s have successfully linked the word “carbon” with the word “pollution” in the minds of many people…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *