A new bout of craziness has broken out on WUWT, this time led by Girma Orssengo, PhD. Girma posted an article entitled: Claim: How the IPCC arrived at climate sensitivity of about 3 deg C instead of 1.2 deg C.
Girma's sixty year cycle based on sixty years of observations!
- Burning fossil fuels doesn't produce carbon dioxide
- Carbon dioxide is being outgassed by the oceans (oceans in fact are absorbing CO2)
- Temperature is rising by magic
- Climate sensitivity is the doubling of temperature from a rise in CO2 that is being outgassed by the oceans as a result of the rising temperature (and that are in fact absorbing, not emitting CO2).
Burning fossil fuels doesn't release CO2 - what?
May 18, 2013 at 8:59 am
I am not saying CO2 is causing the warming. I believe it is the warming that is causing the increase in CO2 concentration, as the vostok ice cores show. The CO2 concentration will drop when the temperature falls.
How is the rise in temperature increasing CO2? (In Girma's reality - not yours and mine)
As the temperature increases, more CO2 is released from the oceans (where it is about 50 times than in the atmosphere) increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmospheric.
As the temperature decreases, more CO2 is dissolved in the oceans decreasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Just what does Girma mean by climate sensitivity?
Slayer Graham is outed by Anthony Watts when he says:
May 18, 2013 at 5:57 am All sensitivity figure are wrong, because there is no linkage between CO2 and temperature.
REPLY: John O’Sullivan, leader of the Principia cult, there’s no need to hide behind a fake email address. We always know who you are here....(inserts email rejection etc here)...Anthony.
Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook is getting nuttier (and shoutier) by the day if that's possible. Despite apparently also denying greenhouse gases (like the slayers do), he remains a favourite of Anthony - and says:
May 18, 2013 at 6:51 am What ever happened to ’cause-and-effect’ in science? Just because temperature went up and CO2 also went up over the same period doesn’t make a basis for calculating how much temperature will go up as CO2 increases! This whole analysis is based on the false premise that temperature is a function of CO2. Why don’t we do the same analysis for the period 1945 to 1977 and calculate how much COOLING occurs with increase in CO2? And why don’t we calculate for the period 1880 to 1915 how much COOLING occurs with increase in CO2? And why don’t we calculate for the Maunder Minimum how much COOLING occurs with increase in CO2? You get the idea–the notion that temperature is a function of CO2 is invalided until you first show a cause-and-effect relationship between the two!Richard M is in some degree of chaos and says:
May 18, 2013 at 8:14 am Climate sensitivity is not a constant. It is variable and dependent upon other factors. That is due to the chaotic nature of climate. When near an attractor state it will be small. The further away it gets the higher it will be for any forcing.