Once more it seems necessary to remind Nova of what Climate Sensitivity why it’s invalid to compare equilibrium expectations against non-equilibrium measurements that are influence by more than just CO2 levels.
Nova compares the last 30 years of warming against her concept of what we should have expected. The problem is she forgets the definition of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, the influence of a cooling sun, and the impact of aerosols.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). … likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. … Fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years.
Because the oceans take a long time to warm to an equilibrium state, we don’t expect the final temperature increase to be reached for a very long time, thousands of years, according to the climate science. According to “Nova science” it should happen immediately; of course “Nova Science” doesn’t obey the laws of physics – the entire ocean should immediately warm to a new state.
Ignore Everything Else!
Nova’s “comparison” suffers from other problems. Nova completely ignores the impact that changes in solar radiation, aerosol emissions and volcanic activity have on global temperatures. The increase due to greenhouse gases becomes even more evident once you filter out those changes.
Bad at Math?
Ignoring Nova’s other mistakes, let’s follow her claim a little further. She claims …
The warming trend expected from CO2 without any feedbacks at all is 0.07 ºC/decade. The trends from the UAH satellites are 0.06±0.01ºC/decade. Since the two figures are almost the same, no one needs a super-computer to tell them that this implies that the sum of all feedbacks (and the sum of all fears) is zip, nada, nothing.
Nova then goes on to suggest that UAH data is better than all others. Some will disagree, I’ll simply point out that all source show about the same amount of warming since 1979 when satellites were introduced.
CRU 0.1460 ºC/decade
GISS 0.1553 ºC/decade
UAH 0.1334 ºC/decade
RSS 0.1339 ºC/decade
Where Nova get’s her 0.06 figure from is anyone’s guess. The data shows the current rate is more than double her figure per decade, and that’s before consideration for equilibrium.
Nova is once again conducting poor science or is deliberately trying to mislead her readers. Did she fool you?