Dana’s unremarkable global warming predictions debunked
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/danas-unremarkable-global-warming.html
Paid CAGW propagandist Dana Nuccitelli has an article today in the Guardian and at the SS site gushing about a paper published in 1972 he claims made “a remarkably accurate global warming prediction” “of the next 30 years.” However, examination of the paper reveals complete ignorance of the logarithmically declining “radiative forcing” of CO2, and in fact demonstrates that “radiative forcing” from CO2 is less than half that currently claimed by the IPCC.
1. The 1972 paper falsely assumes 100% of global warming from 1850-2000 was attributable to CO2, while completely ignoring natural ocean oscillations, the grand solar maximum in the latter 20th century, the integral of solar activity, solar amplification mechanisms, and reduced cloudiness [“global brightening”] in the latter 20th century. This is obviously a highly unjustified, erroneous assumption.
2. The 1972 paper assumes the radiative effects of CO2 are linear and does a calculation based on an assumed 25% rise in CO2 from 1850-2000, ignoring that the effects of CO2 decline logarithmically.
3. The paper should have used a logarithmic equation, such as the IPCC/Myhre equation for CO2 forcing with alleged water vapor amplification:
5.35*ln[CO2ending/CO2starting]
which has a huge erroneous fudge factor of 5.35 that assumes increased water vapor will cause a positive feedback and increase total radiative forcing from CO2 & water vapor by a factor of 3.8 times. In reality, increased water vapor has a negative feedback cooling effect that more than exceeds any warming effect of CO2. The wet adiabatic lapse rate is only one-half of the dry rate, proving that water vapor has a net cooling effect. Satellite observations also prove the net climate feedbacks are negative, not positive as this paper and the IPCC assumes.
4. Even if one falsely assumes 100% of the global warming from 1850-2000 was due to increased CO2, the fudge factor in the IPCC/Myhre formula should be
x = 0.6/[ln(370/292)] = 2.5 [0.6C warming, starting CO2 292 ppm, ending CO2 370 ppm]
based on observations 1850-2000, instead of 5.35, an exaggeration of 2.14 times.
5. Thus, the 1972 paper demonstrates the IPCC exaggerates the climate sensitivity by a minimum of 2.14 times, and that the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is a maximum of 1.73C, even if one falsely assumes 100% of the global warming since 1850 was due to CO2 after all feedbacks.6. Dana also claims James Hansen’s 1981 predictions were “impressively accurate” as well, a bald-faced lie given that temperatures are lower than Hansen forecast they would be if humans disappeared off the planet twelve years ago:
Sent by gReader Pro
