Global "cooling"... debunked?

[Hallo Alfie]

 

[bobdroege7]

Now you want to talk about the cosmic ray issue? Lots of room left in there for other factors...

Not particularly, and the reason I mentioned the cosmic rays is because, and now pay attention,

If you try to calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2 using only the concentration of CO2 versus the temperature you are going to get the wrong answer .

 

[BenBurch]

Pardon my pedantry, but that would be weather, not climate. So your point is moot.

That is the point of this whole PARODY thread. Thank you!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Did those marbles hit you on the head and stun you? Follow the link down a page to where Motl calculates CO2 sensivity from the historical data:

Here is the general link, but his blog format doesn't allow my leading you exactly to the paragraph...you have to trudge down to it:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html

Now, get ready for a shock. The result is

14.854913 + 0.89326377 logCONC​

This means that for 280 ppm, the predicted temperature should be 14.85 °C, higher than today. For 385 ppm, this function predicts 15.26 °C. The warming expected from a CO2 doubling, based on those 11 ancient historical points, is just 0.89 °C. Now, this result assumed that the whole relationship is due to the greenhouse effect. Actually, less then 10% is caused by the greenhouse effect.
This correction would imply that a sensible estimate for the climate sensitivity would be just a tenth of a degree

Now you want to talk about the cosmic ray issue? Lots of room left in there for other factors...

Motis' correlation coefficient was 1.0, indicating that temperature is strictly a function of CO2 concentration? There haven't been any other changes that could effect temperatures, like other changes in atmospheric chemistry or changes in the position of land masses?

 

[MattusMaximus]

There's no snow in sight anywhere where I live...

clearly Global Cooling is a myth!