Seth Miller

I will also point out that the computer models and the paleo link to ice ages is very important. If the sensitivity to CO2 is less than 3 then the ice age explanation falls apart. It’s pretty clear that the ECS is <3.0 to me. We have gotten 0.4C in 70 years and 115ppm.

Let’s be honest. They thought it would be MUCH worse. I understand why they thought it could be much worse. If you look at the fact that 100ppm produced 8C change in the ice ages according to the theory then 115ppm should produce far more change. The change should be unmistakable. They shouldn’t even have to do the adjustment crap they’ve been doing. What does 0.02C adjustment do for them when they are looking for whole degrees change?

The fact that the temperature change is less than they predicted is huge because the whole theory rests on the idea that co2 is magnified hugely to get the ice ages. If co2 isn’t magnified by enough to do that then it may not be magnified at all or even be relevant. There may be negative feedback erasing it. The reason that’s possible is that once the causal relationship with the ice ages is removed then something else must have caused the ice ages. That means co2 may have had little or no effect. We don’t know. The whole theory collapses with lower ECS not just an adjustment to some formula.

What this highlights is that the computer models are pure fabrications to simulate what they think happened during the ice ages. They came up with all these feedbacks as a way to explain how the ice ages could be explained by co2. They had no proof for any of the physics in the models. Then, after construction of the models they fitted it to the temperature record. The problem with such “fitting” is that you have no assurance that once outside the fitting area that the models will work. Guess what. That’s exactly what happened. Virtually on cue the instant after 1999 when the models were fitted the data diverged. That is really damning. If the models were partly right you’d expect to see small deviation but what we have is major divergence. The actual temperature data resembles the curve of co2 output that is ZERO growth. The only conclusion of that is that the real sensitivity of co2 could be very close to zero not 6.0. They said the probability the TCS was <3.0 was small, <2.0 almost impossible and yet we have TCS of 1.2 right now based on temperature data of satellites. The theory is buggered.

In any other field this would be exciting. Scientists would be clambering all over each other to come up with theories and ideas. I have suggested it could be undersea volcanoes. Others have suggested it could be related to other chemical processes. Something that came out literally last week was the find of 10,000 years of CO2 output by humans at today’s level is stored about 100+ miles below the surface of the Earth under California. A 2 million square mile area is loaded with huge amounts of carbon and hydrogen gas liquified and compressed. If even 1% of this CO2 were released levels would soar to thousands of ppm. This was not only surprising to find but it contradicts previous theories about what is in this area of the mantle.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.