…concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. […]
According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.
[…]
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?
More.
Stephen E Schwartz is in the pay of the well known oil giant, Brookhaven National Lab – Atmospheric Science Division.
Click here for the math geek pron. (pdf)
I wonder if this fellow factored in feedback effects like increased levels of water vapour and methane into his model. If he didn’t then the effect of CO2 forcing he’s predicting is pretty much in line with a lot of other models.
Thing is it isn’t realistic to assume that we’re not going to get any feedback, if anything I suspect that the IPCC has downplayed how serious that could be.
But I thought you guys were convinced that no amount of CO2 would have any effect at all?
“Nature is resilient…it has persevered and rebounded through earthly cataclysms and cosmic catastrophies for eons….”
The planet is and will be fine, any damage we do to the planet is effectively an irritating eyeblink in this planet’s history. Unfortunately for humans an eyeblink
Rick “But this group of activists are about SCARE tactics – intimidation – reach the “kids” (which I find most dispicable).”
I’m sure you give the same lecture to people who foam at the mouth about the coming muslim apocalypse that is about to befall us all.
“Personally, I have recycled most of my life.”
How do you fit your cremated ashes into the blue recycling boxes each week?
@John Cross:
You may want to save the acid-rain tie-in for this fellow, mentioned in CBC News.
(As it turns out, I was quite out of the techno-fix loop.)
Daniel M.: Great link – Thanks! I was aware of some discussion about 4 years ago that took place about whether the climate models accurately modeled this effect, but I was not aware of anyone proposing to artifically induce it.
Regards,
John
Daniel M.: Great link – Thanks! I was aware of some discussion about 4 years ago that took place about whether the climate models accurately modeled this effect, but I was not aware of anyone proposing to artifically induce it.
Regards,
John
@John Cross:
Glad to.
Dumping tonnes of fertilizer into the oceans to produce plankton as a counter to global warming strikes me as ill-advised.
Reminds me of the song about the old lady who swallowed a fly:
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I dunno why she swallowed that fly,
Perhaps she’ll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and wiggled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
But I dunno why she swallowed that fly –
Perhaps she’ll die.
Maybe it’d just be easier to cut back on CO2 production, and start sinking some serious dough into finding a replacement.
Headline: Toronto Blogger embarrasses NASA climate “expert”….believe it or not from the CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/08/17/tech-nasatemp070817.html
…”Rick “But this group of activists are about SCARE tactics – intimidation – reach the “kids” (which I find most dispicable).”
I’m sure you give the same lecture to people who foam at the mouth about the coming muslim apocalypse that is about to befall us all.”…
Jose, first I don’t lecture … merely expressing my opinion. Second, whatever gave you a judgement factor on my reaction, or not, to people who foam at the mouth about anything … or on whatever you mean by the “coming muslim apocolypse”??
Or are you simply supplying an admission that the global warming activists to whom I refer are ACTUALLY “foaming at the mouth”?
… interesting characterization that I hadn’t thought of! hmmm …
Rick
This paper was referenced on climateaudit.com post #66 in: Hansen and the destruction of Creation:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
The graphs are great and I might point out that the rocks don’t lie.