The term "climate sensitivity" assumes rising CO2 causes rising temperatures but the opposite has happened for past decade+

.
5/20/13, "ECS with Otto," Bishop Hill

The term, "climate sensitivity" assumes CO2 causes rising temperatures on an ongoing basis. CO2 has increased in recent years but temperatures haven't, yet man-caused climate terror advocates continue using the phrase knowing it's misleading if not inaccurate, Bishop Hill commenters note following Economist chart.

3/30/13, "A sensitive matter," The Economist

"The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought."

"The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now."
 

Chart from The Economist

-------------------------------------------

3 comments to Bishop Hill discussing 'climate sensitivity:'

=========================

"May 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM | Jeremy Shiers

"Climate sensitivity relates the increase in temperature as a result of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This assumes increasing CO2 causes increased temperature AND the way CO2 causes increasing temperature is a constant.

This assumption seems more than a bit bizarre seeing as for the last 15 years or so temperatures have not risen whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise.

As my current favorite graph shows
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature

A simple explanation for changes in measured "climate sensitivity" is no such thing exists,
there was a short period when CO2 levels and temperatures appeared to rise in step.

This lead to one apparent value for climate sensitivity.

Since temperatures have stopped following rising CO2, lower values of climate sensitivity are found.

It is well known the first result of all research is - more research is needed.

What is the incentive for people to publish there is no such physical effect as is implied by climate sensitivity?" [None! No money. ed.]
.
==============================
.
"May 20, 2013 at 3:55 PM | Peter Stroud

"It is clear that the climate sensitivity value, used by IPCC modellers was pure guesswork. We know it, and the established climate science community knows it. So when their projections of temperature versus CO2 levels are shown to be falsified by measurements, why do they look to such an empirically unsupported phenomenon as deep ocean energy storage? Or strange ideas about aerosols?

Why do they continue to turn their backs on the scientific method by simply not admitting that they might have made a poor guess?"
.

===============================
.

"May 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM | JEM
.

""But the most useful result of these sensitivity papers would be to halt bogus and harmful climate policies in their tracks."...

Maybe I'm just too cynical to believe that the 

eco-troughers and their revenue-hungry political puppets will give up that easily."

==========================

.

Overwhelming scientific consensus says global warming has paused:

1/18/13, “Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming,” Der Spiegel, by Axel Bojanowski (translation from German by google). Chart below by UK Met Office, via Der Spiegel:

===========================

Ed. note: More word games in pursuit of permanent attachment to the US taxpayer--which used to be called slavery.

.