• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Lewis and Curry Paper Points to Lower ECS and TCR

Jack Hays said:
The Lewis and Curry paper signals that the end is near. Recent research results confirm and extend the trend toward ever-lower estimates for ECS and TCR. That alone is enough to set aside most claims on behalf of the AGW hypothesis. And since December 2017 a critical mechanism for Svensmark's solar/GCR hypothesis has been identified and confirmed. Finally, the sun is approaching minimum, which should result in several years, perhaps decades, of cooling. Not good for the AGW propagandists. Keep a lookout for white flags.
Click to expand...

Soon people will ask ... "Who is this Albert Gore?"
 
[h=2]Leading Evolutionary Biologist Says “CO2 Is A Blessing”, Rejects Cult-Like “Earth Heat Death” Claims[/h]By P Gosselin on 22. December 2019
German evolutionary biologist and physiologist Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera told in an interview that “CO2 is a blessing for mankind” and that the claimed “97% consensus” among scientists is “a myth”.
Hat-tip :Die kalte Sonne.

Evolutionary biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera. Source: ResearchGate. ​
97% consensus claim “untenable”
Kutschera, who has authored over three hundred scientific publications and twelve books, told the German “Junge Freiheit” (JF) that the 97% figure on consensus was created in 2013 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook and that it has since “turned out to be untenable”, as proven by David R. Legates.
“Cook and Powell evaluated an arbitrary number of climate publications according to questionable criteria,” Kutschera told JF.
Climate doomsday “kind of religious cult”
When asked why he also signed the European Climate Declaration declaring no climate emergency, he said he considered it “important that a professional educational initiative, hopefully politically neutral, should finally emerge” and that he rejected extremes, among them the “‘climate alarmists’ who predict a fictitious, imminent ‘earth heat death’ and thus practice a kind of religious cult.”

“Basic nutrient for all plants”
“So since plants need CO2 as a basic foodstuff, there would be no life on earth without this trace gas,” said Kutschera, in response to claims that CO2 is a pollutant. “Therefore, the scientific discipline of plant physiology is of central importance, and CO2 is therefore a blessing for mankind!”
CO2 tax “nonsensical”
“Since about 1850, the CO2 content of the air has risen from 0.028 volume percent (280 ppm) to 0.041 volume percent (410 ppm) today. This has led to an increase in global photosynthesis – in other words, we humans have made the earth greener!” said the highly controversial professor from Kassel.
He also calls the planned CO2 tax “nonsensical” and that it is “actually a kind of new ‘special food tax’ on the state”.
Earth being greened by man
The renowned biologist also told JF that the natural carbon cycle has been altered by man so “that currently about a third of the CO2 we put into the air is consumed by plants, which increases their growth. The result is that the earth is greened by man, including higher crop yields – from which, incidentally, agriculture benefits worldwide – i.e. mainly poor countries that depend on agricultural products to a much greater extent than we do.”
97% of FFF activists don’t understand carbon cycle
Kutschera criticizes the hysteria that some of his fellow scientists are spreading and he sees the climate issue as highly politicized and poorly understood. Concerning the Fridays for Future activists, he tells JF:
As I have been active in nature conservation since my early youth – building ponds, etc. – I basically rate the movement positively. However, I fear that more than 97 percent of its activists can neither define the term ‘climate’ nor have understood the carbon cycle or the function of the Rubisco enzyme, and therefore act purely politically. Since the irrational climate cult is on the rise, I advocate a ‘Fridays for Plant Physiology’ movement.”
​
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]3 degrees C?[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/23/3-degrees-c/"]December 23, 2019[/URL] by curryja | 62 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Is 3 C warming over the 21st century now the ‘best estimate’? A reframing of how we think about climate change over the 21st century, and my arguments for 1 C.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

But I thought you said the climate was going to cool?
 
Weak El Nino Conditions Help Explain Recent Global Warmth

January 13th, 2020The continuing global-average warmth over the last year has caused a few people to ask for my opinion regarding potential explanations. So, I updated the 1D energy budget model I described a couple years ago here with the most recent Multivariate ENSO Index (MEIv2) data. The model is initialized in the year 1765, has two ocean layers, and is forced with the RCP6 radiative forcing scenario and the history of El Nino and La Nina activity since the late 1800s. . . .

Generally speaking, changing any one of the adjustable parameters requires changes in one or more of the other parameters in order for the model to remain reasonably close to the variety of observations. There is no one “best” set of parameter choices which gives optimum agreement to the observations. All reasonable choices produce equilibrium climate sensitivities in the range of 1.4 to 1.7 deg. C.
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate sensitivity[/FONT]
[h=1]Top and Bottom of the Atmosphere[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Some days I learn a lot. Today was one of them. Let me start at the start. Back in 1987 in a paper entitled ‘The Role of Earth Radiation Budget Studies in Climate and General Circulation Research“, a prescient climate scientist yclept Veerabhadran Ramanathan pointed out that the poorly-named “greenhouse…
[/FONT]
 
More evidence of low climate sensitivity.

[h=2]Study Recalculates New Greenhouse Effect Values And Sharply Minimizes CO2’s Contribution And Climate Sensitivity[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 27. January 2020
[h=4]Another study finds CO2’s greenhouse effect contribution and climate sensitivity are much smaller than claimed by the IPCC and proponents of anthropogenic global warming.[/h]Ollila (2019) reconfigures the “consensus”-derived greenhouse effect radiation values and finds (a) LW absorption only adds 45% to Earth’s present atmospheric greenhouse effect, (b) water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and (c) CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling.
Low-Climate-Sensitivity-GHE-Specification-Challenged-Ollila-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Ollila (2019)[/h]The reconfiguration eliminates the “physical contradiction” of having a 155.6 W/m² create an energy flux of 345.6 W/m² by rejecting the claim that the entire longwave energy flux is from greenhouse gases.
Further, CO2’s total temperature contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced from 7.2°C to 2.4°C, which better aligns with the climate sensitivity (doubled CO2) estimate of 0.6°C.
Challenging-the-Greenhouse-Effect-Specification-and-Climate-Sensitivity-Ollila-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Ollila (2019)[/h]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Study: High End Model Climate Sensitivities Not Supported by Paleo Evidence[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall University of Michigan researchers have done the unthinkable, and checked climate model predictions against available paleo-climate data to see if the predictions are plausible. Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming Date:April 30, 2020Source:University of MichiganSummary:A new study from climate researchers concludes that some…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/study-high-end-model-climate-sensitivities-not-supported-by-paleo-evidence/"]
mccoy_ison_its_dead_jim.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Study: High End Model Climate Sensitivities Not Supported by Paleo Evidence[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Eric Worrall University of Michigan researchers have done the unthinkable, and checked climate model predictions against available paleo-climate data to see if the predictions are plausible. Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming Date:April 30, 2020Source:University of MichiganSummary:A new study from climate researchers concludes that some…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/study-high-end-model-climate-sensitivities-not-supported-by-paleo-evidence/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
The observed data cannot support a 2XCO2 ECS of 3C, much less an ECS of 5 to 6 C.
At dome point the illusions generated by the models will be cast aside, but for now, the alarmist are still insisting on our
imminent peril.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom