IPCC estimates of ECS make no sense

Ideology drives estimates, laws of physics are ignored

In their fifth report, the U.N. Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) estimates the equilibrium climate sensitivity of a doubling of carbon dioxide (“CO2” concentrations in atmosphere measured as parts per million by volume (ppm) is between 1.5 degrees Celsius and 4.5 degrees Celsius. Mirosoft Co-Pilot returns the following summary of the IPCC estimates and methodology.

Scientists trying to model the range of possible ECS levels use Monte Carlo simulation which includes a range of possible levels for the “equilibrium climate parameter from 0.1 to 5.0 watts per meter squared of Earth’s surface. This clip from an article by Philip Goodwin published by the Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK summarizes this approach.

The complexity in the estimates arises from the effect of oceans where energy stored in the oceans takes long periods to affect atmospheric temperature requiring a delay between an transient effect and a final equilibrium. In approaching this conundrum, climate scientists over complicate the issue by forgetting that the only energy added in this estimate is the equilibrium climate parameter (ECP) they have concluded must lie inthe range of 0.1 to 5.0 watts per square meter as stated above.

Stop right there and think. As I published in an earlier article, using the approximate mid-point ECP of 2.28, ECS was .002 degrees Celsius based on a simple application of the laws of physics

.

Since the relationship between added joules of energy and increased temperature is linear, the maximum outcome from the right tail of the ECP distribution of estimates of 5.0 watts per square meter is:

5.0/2.28 x 0.02 = .04 degrees Celsius

No matter how you cut it, or how much you complicate the simulation to account for the transient period caused by delays in the energy finding its way into atmosphere owing to ocean effects, when equilibrium is reached the increased temperature from a doubling of CO2 levels from the pre-industrial level of approximately 280 ppm to 560 ppm is a tiny fraction of a degree. Even increases in CO2 level to over 4,000 ppm have no material effect on atmospheric temperature in equilibrium.

As an aside, complete combustion of all fossil fuels known to exist on Earth is incapable of producing enough CO2 to raise the atmospheric concentration to over 4,000 ppm (this math is easy - one barrel of oil produces 447 kg CO2 if burned completely, one thousand cubic feet of natural gas produces 5.3 kg CO2 (117 pounds) if burned completely, and one ton of coal produces no more than 3.66 tons of CO2 if burned completely. Global reserves of oil are 1.73 trillion barrels, of natural gas are 1.7 trillion cubic feet; and, global reserves of coal are about 1.1 trillion tons. One ppm of atmosphere by mass is approximately 5.4 gigatons.)

Complete combustion of all existing fossil fuel reserves on Earth would increase atmospheric CO2 levels by less than 1,300 ppm by volume if 100% of the CO2 released went into atmosphere and none went into oceans, petrochemicals, asphalt, photosynthesis or other non-atmospheric destinations.

Returning to thermodynamics and physics, and without belaboring the point, increasing the temperature of any mass (including the mass of the atmosphere) requires more joules of energy and the maximum increase is a linear function of the added joules regardless of climate feedback factors or transient climate responses, which merely alter the timing of the maximum warming being reached but cannot add additional joules of energy.

Anthropogenic global warming and claims that CO2 emissions cause climate change are utter nonsense, promoted for the political benefit of having an alarm around which to rally support without ever having to demonstrate success since no success is possible when no risk is present.