Full speed for an alarmism week

Nice Bristols*

The other thing that we should expect in the next 11 days is full on climate hysteria, with apocalyptic predictions, everything “happening faster, bigger, badder than we thought”. But now we can take it all with a pinch of salt, since in this post-CRU world, we give our climate scientists even less leeway than they had before. The latest scare is that the climate is “more sensitive than previously thought” to CO2, so we need even deeper, harsher, bigger and badder cuts.

From our “The Science is Settled” department:

In the long term, the Earth’s temperature may be 30-50 per cent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience this week.

The results show that components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales – such as land-ice and vegetation – have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but these factors are often neglected in current climate models.

Dr Dan Lunt, from the University of Bristol, and colleagues compared results from a global climate model to temperature reconstructions of the Earth’s environment three million years ago when global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively high. The temperature reconstructions were derived using data from three-million-year-old sediments on the ocean floor.

Lunt said, “We found that, given the concentrations of carbon dioxide prevailing three million years ago, the model originally predicted a significantly smaller temperature increase than that indicated by the reconstructions. This led us to review what was missing from the model.”

But, but, but… our models are perfect, aren’t they? They must be – the planet is about to spend trillions of dollars based on their output. But not to worry. Results of climate research never say “it’s not as bad as we thought” or “we may have overestimated this.” What are the chances of every piece of research always saying it’s worse? And of course, the inevitable call to action:

Alan Haywood, a co-author on the study from the University of Leeds, said “If we want to avoid dangerous climate change, this high sensitivity of the Earth to carbon dioxide should be taken into account when defining targets for the long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations”.

This is all about feedbacks of course. The actual warming effect of a doubling of CO2 is virtually nothing, but the models rely on fudge factors in the feedbacks in order to make the models fit what has already happened in the past. However, because this leads to huge positive feedbacks, temperature projections go through the roof for a modest increase in CO2. The fact is that no climate scientist understands the feedbacks, because there are still thousands of unknowns or unquantifiables (despite Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown telling us all “the science is settled”), which means the models don’t either, and the results are close to worthless.

Read it here.

*Cockney rhyming slang: Bristol Cities – t*tties.