Climate Sensitivity: Help Needed

I have bumped up the two articles on climate sensitivity because I am getting some very interesting results on that topic.  Note that in both articles I achieved a result of a climate sensitivity of 0.24 °C / (W/m2 ).  That corresponds to a doubling effect of CO2 at about 0.9 °C.

These articles show two independent methods that achieve the same result.  One provides the basis (a theory if you will) for predicting what the Earth’s climate sensitivity is.  The other article uses the local changes in solar energy to determine the climate sensitivity and it gives a comparable result to the overall one.

This matters at the moment because I have found some stunning results that require action.  I am looking for assistance in putting the results together in a paper to be submitted for publication.  Anyone experienced in working through that labyrinth of publication would be appreciated.  This is a very important result because if it can be proven that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is less than 1 °C for a doubling of CO2 then there is almost no cause for concern.  It could mean that CO2 does have some effect, but one that is limited enough to not be much of a worry.

A climate sensitivity at the 0.24 °C / (W/m2) scale would indicate that CO2 levels of 1,200 ppm would result in less than a 2 °C temperature change.  That puts the IPCC projections off by more than a factor of 3.  This could be a pretty significant result.


Posted in Climate by inconvenientskeptic on February 25th, 2011 at 3:57 pm.


This post has 8 comments

  1. nofreewind Feb 26th 2011

    >This is a very important result because if it can be proven that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is less than 1 °C for a doubling of CO2 then there is almost no cause for concern. …This could be a pretty significant result.

    Maybe to you, maybe to me, but not to the powers that be.
    Climate models predict that with temperature rise, water vapor should rise also. It hasn’t, and that hasn’t mattered one bit to the “powers that be”.

  2. Richard111 Feb 28th 2011

    I worked in Singapore for several years and found the humidity a problem. The daily temperature was LESS than I experienced in Namibia. So much for water vapour heating.

  3. inconvenientskeptic Feb 28th 2011

    Hehe… I was in Manzini long ago and that place is hot and humid. Ugh.

    Water vapor heating. Some people just don’t want to understand energy.

  4. – nofreewind

    He/she is right. The establishment (more or less) is convinced that positive feedbacks will dominate the trend and lead to catastrophic AGW.

    Or course, the fact that elevated CO2 levels throughout history have never led to this scenarios doesn’t matter b/c it doesn’t fit the CAGW narrative.

  5. John,
    I just sent you an email asking some rudimentary questions on this topic. I just can’t see sensitivity being 2°-3°C. I hope you can help.

  6. Joris Vanderborght Mar 1st 2011

    This number, 1° K, is actually in the IPCC report. No one is disputing it. However, warmists think this 1° will be multiplied by positive feedback mechanisms in the complex climate system, which themselves have nothing to do directly with CO2. And of course that’s what’s bothering a lot of sceptics. There will be feedback, but will it be positive, resulting in a warming of more than one degree, or will it be negative (dampening), resulting in a warming which cannot possibly exceed one degree Kelvin? This issue has already been covered on other websites, like climate sceptic and by Lindzen.

  7. inconvenientskeptic Mar 1st 2011


    Yes many others have discussed this topic, but I have found some interesting results that require additional verification. If a significantly smaller sensitivity can be proven…

  8. John,

    No need to answer my mail. I just found your “Determining the Correct Climate Ssensitivity” article and see you came to the exact same conclusion I did! (of course your math was more precise)


Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity