Climate sensitivity (expected change in global temperature due to a doubling of CO2 levels/Watts per sq meter (°C/(W/m²))) according to actual data:
- Spencer: .18 (see slide below, recent satellite data)
- Lindzen: .08 -.3 (derived from WSJ article about pre-publication results)
- Monckton: .12 (see slide below)
- Paltridge: .1 - .3 (based on NCEP trends, figure 10 of paper)
- Schwartz: .3 (paper)
- Spectroscopic data without feedbacks: .3 (see slide below, and derived from GISS email)
And according to the fictitious GIGO computer models of:
- IPCC: .55 - 1.1 (see Dr. Spencer's & Monckton's slides below; average .88)
- NASA/GISS: 1.135 (derived from recently released NASA/GISS emails)
which incorporate imaginary mystical positive feedback amplification factors as much as 14 times higher (1.135/.08) than what the empirical data shows.
Which do you believe?
From Lord Monckton's Lecture:
(Note some figures approximated from graphs. Note any sensitivity number less than the 0.3 °C/(W/m²) derived from spectroscopic data implies that the net feedback is negative not positive)