Analysis: Warmist Dana Nuccitelli’s unremarkable global warming predictions debunked

Dana’s unremarkable global warming predictions debunked

Paid CAGW propagandist Dana Nuccitelli has an article today in the Guardian and at the SS site gushing about a paper published in 1972 he claims made “a remarkably accurate global warming prediction” “of the next 30 years.” However, examination of the paper reveals complete ignorance of the logarithmically declining “radiative forcing” of CO2, and in fact demonstrates that “radiative forcing” from CO2 is less than half that currently claimed by the IPCC.

1. The 1972 paper falsely assumes 100% of global warming from 1850-2000 was attributable to CO2, while completely ignoring natural ocean oscillations, the grand solar maximum in the latter 20th century, the integral of solar activity, solar amplification mechanisms, and reduced cloudiness [“global brightening”] in the latter 20th century. This is obviously a highly unjustified, erroneous assumption.

2. The 1972 paper assumes the radiative effects of CO2 are linear and does a calculation based on an assumed 25% rise in CO2 from 1850-2000, ignoring that the effects of CO2 decline logarithmically.

3. The paper should have used a logarithmic equation, such as the IPCC/Myhre equation for CO2 forcing with alleged water vapor amplification:


which has a huge erroneous fudge factor of 5.35 that assumes increased water vapor will cause a positive feedback and increase total radiative forcing from CO2 & water vapor by a factor of 3.8 times. In reality, increased water vapor has a negative feedback cooling effect that more than exceeds any warming effect of CO2. The wet adiabatic lapse rate is only one-half of the dry rate, proving that water vapor has a net cooling effect. Satellite observations also prove the net climate feedbacks are negative, not positive as this paper and the IPCC assumes.

4. Even if one falsely assumes 100% of the global warming from 1850-2000 was due to increased CO2, the fudge factor in the IPCC/Myhre formula should be

x = 0.6/[ln(370/292)] = 2.5    [0.6C warming, starting CO2 292 ppm, ending CO2 370 ppm]

based on observations 1850-2000, instead of 5.35, an exaggeration of 2.14 times.
5. Thus, the 1972 paper demonstrates the IPCC exaggerates the climate sensitivity by a minimum of 2.14 times, and that the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is a maximum of 1.73C, even if one falsely assumes 100% of the global warming since 1850 was due to CO2 after all feedbacks.6. Dana also claims James Hansen’s 1981 predictions …

Warmists upset: ‘Climate Denier’ Jim Inhofe Says He Could Lead Senate’s Top Environment Committee Next Year

Climate Denier Jim Inhofe Says He Could Lead Senate’s Top Environment Committee Next Year

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)

If Republicans gain control of the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) believes that he will lead the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe made the comments to 50 plant managers in Catoosa, Oklahoma, the Tulsa World reports.
Inhofe, who wrote a book called, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, served as chairman on the environmental committee for four years. David Vitter (R-LA) replaced him as the ranking GOP member on the committee chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for the 113th Congress. GOP rules limit members to six years of service as committee chairs, meaning that Inhofe could theoretically reclaim his position for another two years should Republicans win the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections.
Inhofe, still a senior member of the environmental committee and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, has been one of the most obstructive Senators when it comes to meaningful climate change legislation.
Besides his book, Inhofe authored a report titled “The Facts and Science of Climate Change,” in which he argued that “alarmists will scare the country into enacting their ultimate goal: making energy suppression, in the form of harmful mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions, the official policy of the United States.” He also questioned whether global warming “is even a problem for human existence.”
In fact, over 97 percent of climate scientists accept the reality of human-caused climate change.
Inhofe has also said that humans lack the ability to affect the climate because control is limited to divine powers: “The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
In 2006, Inhofe compared environmental advocates to the Third Reich. More recently, Inhofe claimed that cold weather disproved his substantial opposition and that fewer Senators are supportive of efforts to address climate change.
During his 25-year tenure in Congress, Inhofe has received nearly $1.6 million in contributions from the oil and gas industries, by far his largest donor base. Fossil fuel organizations have donated over $300,000 to him since 2009. Inhofe is up for re-election this year, but he is unlikely to lose his seat.
The post Climate Denier Jim Inhofe Says He Could Lead …

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: ‘This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community’ – Declares report includes ‘blatant advocacy and absurd statements’

Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
March 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm

I recommend readers look at the minority AGU Statement I prepared and contrast that with the AAAS report’s statements in My statement is

Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]. Minority Statement in response to AGU Position Statement on Climate Change entitled: “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action” released on 8/5/13.

The AAAS report is even worse than the AGU and AMS Statements (and I thought that would be hard to do). I know several of the authors of the AAAC report, and respect their science within their immediate area of expertise. However, the blatant advocacy and absurd statements such as

“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking
smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”

show that this report is just political theater.

There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.

Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly contact to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.

Another example (and their are many in this report) is

“decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of these other factors.”

is counter to established research which shows, for example, the first order importance of other human climate forcings; e.g. see

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.


National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies