A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Catestrophic Global Warming Unlikely

[LowDown]

In this Climate Science Headline series I've been attempting to show that there is much more out there in the scientific literature that supports a skeptical position about anthropogenic global warming than most lay people realize because that sort of work is almost never reported in popular science publications or the newspapers.

This paper published in the peer reviewed journal Nature Climate Change shows that analysis of historical data shows that the assumptions used to suppose that climate sensitivity might be as high as 4 or 6 presume conditions that are unlikely to ever happen. A more likely scenario posits conditions leading to a climate sensitivity of around 2.

Since this paper was published additional findings reduce the probability of extreme global warming even more. One is the finding that stratospheric aerosols are not man made and the other is that historical data of forcings and temperature indicated a lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC has claimed. So climate sensitivity is likely to be sigificantly less than 2.

Of course, all of this assumes that the idea that CO2 is driving the increase in temperature is true. There is evidence that it's not, as I've posted previously.

Another paper, for example, shows that increases in Atlantic heat content and sea level are tied to natural oscillations rather than CO2.

Links to these abstracts were found on the Hockey Schtick, where you'll find links to many if not most of the peer reviewed literature that lends support to a skeptical view, some of it without meaning to.

 

[code1211]

In this Climate Science Headline series I've been attempting to show that there is much more out there in the scientific literature that supports a skeptical position about anthropogenic global warming than most lay people realize because that sort of work is almost never reported in popular science publications or the newspapers.

This paper published in the peer reviewed journal Nature Climate Change shows that analysis of historical data shows that the assumptions used to suppose that climate sensitivity might be as high as 4 or 6 presume conditions that are unlikely to ever happen. A more likely scenario posits conditions leading to a climate sensitivity of around 2.

Since this paper was published additional findings reduce the probability of extreme global warming even more. One is the finding that stratospheric aerosols are not man made and the other is that historical data of forcings and temperature indicated a lower climate sensitivity than the IPCC has claimed. So climate sensitivity is likely to be sigificantly less than 2.

Of course, all of this assumes that the idea that CO2 is driving the increase in temperature is true. There is evidence that it's not, as I've posted previously.

Another paper, for example, shows that increases in Atlantic heat content and sea level are tied to natural oscillations rather than CO2.

Links to these abstracts were found on the Hockey Schtick, where you'll find links to many if not most of the peer reviewed literature that lends support to a skeptical view, some of it without meaning to.

I have often requested that someone produce an accurate prediction of Global temperature based on AGW Science which, of course, is impossible since there are none.

There is one from 1938 that is fairly accurate and it, of course, does not use AGW Science to arrive at the conclusion. AGW Science demands that the forcing from CO2 be augmented by the feedbacks including increased impacts from water vapor. I think by their utterly success free attempts at prediction, they have proven pretty conclusively that the feedbacks are not happening.

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change - WSJ.com
<snip>
Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR "transient climate response" (TCR) is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That's uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar's model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that "hindcast" the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.
<snip>

Red was inserted by Code.