• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degree C

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A new paper to be published in the peer reviewed journal Tellus provides a new estimate of climate sensitity to CO2 doubling of 1.16 degrees C based on data collected between 1970 and 2010. In other words, this is the observed sensitivity during that period. This adds one more to a long list of peer reviewed publications claiming that climate sensitivity is much lower than what the IPCC claims.

It means that increased CO2 in the atmoshere is nothing to worry about.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

A new paper to be published in the peer reviewed journal Tellus provides a new estimate of climate sensitity to CO2 doubling of 1.16 degrees C based on data collected between 1970 and 2010. In other words, this is the observed sensitivity during that period. This adds one more to a long list of peer reviewed publications claiming that climate sensitivity is much lower than what the IPCC claims.

It means that increased CO2 in the atmoshere is nothing to worry about.

the man made climate change hoax is falling apart and the liberal environmentalist will still desperately cling to the myth to the bitter end
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

A new paper to be published in the peer reviewed journal Tellus provides a new estimate of climate sensitity to CO2 doubling of 1.16 degrees C based on data collected between 1970 and 2010. In other words, this is the observed sensitivity during that period. This adds one more to a long list of peer reviewed publications claiming that climate sensitivity is much lower than what the IPCC claims.

It means that increased CO2 in the atmoshere is nothing to worry about.

:caution: :alert Truth is being spoken here, liberals run away!
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

:caution: :alert Truth is being spoken here, liberals run away!

You're probably right. Facts are stubborn things, and the truth is often inconvenient (I think I heard that somewhere a few years ago).
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

You guys didn't ****in read the paper, did you? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

So now they did read the paper and sheepishly vanish from the thread, I suppose.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

You guys didn't ****in read the paper, did you? :lamo
I just read through the Conclusions.
Two parts struck me.
Accepting this interpretation implies de facto that human society has
692 inadvertently been engineering the climate during the whole period. As these aerosols are short693
lived in the atmosphere, this interpretation would imply also that future reduction in the
694 emissions of aerosol precursor gases in conjunction with future reductions in CO2 emissions
695 would give rise to a rapid increase in global temperature as the aerosol offset is reduced.
This sound like if we reduce Co2 we would see a "rapid increase in global temperature"


714 We also presented quantities that we denoted as lower bounds to the two climate sensitivities,
715 which we calculated as the best estimate minus 1.64 σ, to extend the uncertainty range to
716 encompass all but the 5% tail of the distribution, for the probability distribution function for these
717 quantities taken as normally distributed. For these quantities we obtained for transient and
718 equilibrium sensitivities 0.28 and 0.31 K (W m-2)-1, respectively, equivalent to 1.03 and 1.16 K
719 (3.7 W m-2)-1. The lower bound to equilibrium sensitivity calculated in this way exceeds the no720
feedback Planck sensitivity, establishing observationally, within the assumptions of this analysis,
721 that feedback in the climate system can confidently be taken as positive.
This looks like the observed feedback looks to be a positive, and 1.03 to 1.16 Degrees K (same in C)
While these numbers are lower than the IPCC sensitivity (between 1.2 K and 2.6 K temperature increase),
The high end of their range almost overlaps the low end of the IPCC range.
They also said to send more money as this needs to be studied more.
I am thinking the numbers cam out lower than they were expecting,
and are trying to put some lipstick on the pig, so they can apply for the next grant.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

This number the OP is quoting is the lower bound of sensitivity, as calculated by this study under certain assumptions. The number to compare to th IPCC is this study's estimate of 2.0k +/- .5k, to the Ipcc's 2-4.5
 
A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

A new paper to be published in the peer reviewed journal Tellus provides a new estimate of climate sensitity to CO2 doubling of 1.16 degrees C based on data collected between 1970 and 2010. In other words, this is the observed sensitivity during that period. This adds one more to a long list of peer reviewed publications claiming that climate sensitivity is much lower than what the IPCC claims.

It means that increased CO2 in the atmoshere is nothing to worry about.

Cribbed from :

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-low-estimate-of-climate.html?m=1
 
A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

The OP is original text by me.

Cribbed and then mid attributed, to make it look like you read obscure journals instead of schlocky websites.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

Cribbed and then mid attributed, to make it look like you read obscure journals instead of schlocky websites.

Horrors. :roll:. You seem to have missed the fact that the paper cited is peer reviewed.

Besides which, I've linked The Hockey Schtick in several other posts in this Climate Science Headline series.
 
Last edited:
A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

Horrors. :roll:. You seem to have missed the fact that the paper cited is peer reviewed.

Nope. Just pointing out you are basically reposting shot from a denier blog but conveniently 'forgetting' to attribute where you're getting it from.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

Horrors. :roll:. You seem to have missed the fact that the paper cited is peer reviewed.

Besides which, I've linked The Hockey Schtick in several other posts in this Climate Science Headline series.

You seem to have missed the fact that the research refers only to the lower end of the variability estimate. It doesn't say what your website claims it does. THERE's your problem.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

You seem to have missed the fact that the research refers only to the lower end of the variability estimate. It doesn't say what your website claims it does. THERE's your problem.

Ok, so the best estimate is 1.5, which is the lower bound of the previous IPCC report. The new lower bound is 1.16, and the most it can be, according to them is 1.84.

I don't see a problem. Either way it's a big reduction in the estimate of sensitivity, and it would mean that global warming is nothing to worry about.
 
A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

Ok, so the best estimate is 1.5, which is the lower bound of the previous IPCC report. The new lower bound is 1.16, and the most it can be, according to them is 1.84.

I don't see a problem. Either way it's a big reduction in the estimate of sensitivity, and it would mean that global warming is nothing to worry about.

So you mean you accept the finding of scientists? Or just those the ones that fit your pre-formed conclusions?
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

So you mean you accept the finding of scientists? Or just those the ones that fit your pre-formed conclusions?

Do you accept the finding of the scientists? It wrecks your doomsday scenario.

I've argued for some time that the climate sensitivity can't be as high as the IPCC says it is or could be. See, for example, http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/lowdown/805-scientific-questions-climate-science.html

Observational estimates of climate sensitivity have been made for years now that were no where near as high as the IPCC has been saying. So far the IPCC has been refractory to that information, but it is increasingly hard to ignore now that the models have failed so badly.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

Ok, so the best estimate is 1.5, which is the lower bound of the previous IPCC report. The new lower bound is 1.16, and the most it can be, according to them is 1.84.

I don't see a problem. Either way it's a big reduction in the estimate of sensitivity, and it would mean that global warming is nothing to worry about.

No, it's 2.0. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time spamming everything you come across, you'd make fewer mistakes.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

No, it's 2.0. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time spamming everything you come across, you'd make fewer mistakes.

No, you're looking at the wrong figure.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

This number the OP is quoting is the lower bound of sensitivity, as calculated by this study under certain assumptions. The number to compare to th IPCC is this study's estimate of 2.0k +/- .5k, to the Ipcc's 2-4.5

In other words, what you are saying is that the high in the new study is 2.0k less than IPCC?
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

No, you're looking at the wrong figure.

No, you are. The paper even flat out says that it's the second figure in that sentence that is comparable to the IPCC. (equilibrium climate sensitivity rather than transient)

In other words, what you are saying is that the high in the new study is 2.0k less than IPCC?

Nope. Its "best estimate" is 1K below the IPCC's "best estimate" of 3.0. Although if I understand it right, the IPCC's range isn't a result of a direct analysis, but rather an aggregation of a bunch of different methodologies for estimating sensitivity. They all tend to end up in the 2-4.5K range, with only a couple outliers.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

Nope. Its "best estimate" is 1K below the IPCC's "best estimate" of 3.0. Although if I understand it right, the IPCC's range isn't a result of a direct analysis, but rather an aggregation of a bunch of different methodologies for estimating sensitivity. They all tend to end up in the 2-4.5K range, with only a couple outliers.


Sure, let's keep playing your game. The Best estimate in the new study is 33% lower than IPCC. Settled science?
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 degre

No, you are. The paper even flat out says that it's the second figure in that sentence that is comparable to the IPCC. (equilibrium climate sensitivity rather than transient)

The actual increase in temperature you get when you double CO2 in the atmosphere is the transient climate sensitivity. This, according to the authors, is what people commonly mean by climate sensitivity (line 407-408). What you refer to is the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the increase in temperature you'd get if everything was allowed to come to equilibrium after CO2 doubling, after the climate reaches a steady state. There is, of course, no such thing as a steady state in real world climate, it's a figure you get from running climate models.

These guys did a straightforward determination of the transient climate sensitivity from GISS temperature (!) and various tables of forcing data. They call it a lower bound estimate because they think there is uncertainty about forcings that would lead to higher sensitivity, especially aerosols. In other words, if aerosols caused the total forcing to be lower than GISS estimates then the climate sensitivity would actually be higher than the estimates they calculate. But there is very little real world data on the aerosols over time, so the possibility of higher sensitivity than these estimates, taken from real world data, is speculative.

The use of GISS data is an interesting choice since it runs hotter than other data sets, going up ~0.6 degrees since 1979 while satellite data has the temperature going up ~0.3. (The Met office has it going up ~0.45.) You could argue that the lower bound these guys calculate should be divided in half; i.e., 0.7 for the transient climate sensitivity, which would mean that net climate feedbacks are negative. There are a lot of problems with the station data the GISS temperature record is based on. Interesting that they call these estimates "lower bound" when they used the hottest data set out there.

Then, using a bunch of assumptions, they calculate the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is what the IPCC reports out. They came up with a figure of about 2, but there was uncertainty in this estimate, and the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity 95% confidence interval was 1.16 meaning that they could say that the chances were >95% that the actual equilibrium climate sensitivity was greater than that number. This puts the actual lower bound they calculate well below the IPCC's number.

GISS claims that since 1750 total forcing from greenhouse gasses and other factors like aerosols has increased by about 1.7 W/m2. From this we got a temperature increase of about 0.8 degree. Doubling the 1750 level of CO2 would give us an additional 1.6 W/m2. So, all else remaining equal, transient climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 ought to be about 1.55 degress going by GISS's forcings. And this is transient climate sensitivity. Using satellite data for temperatures would give you a lower figure as it indicates an increase of only 0.3 since 1979, taking that much off of the total, for an increase of 0.5 degrees since 1750. From this the sensitivity is ~0.98.

Of course, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. The next most important one is methane, which tends to increase and decrease along with CO2. So the increase in forcing from greenhouse gasses will be greater than that of CO2 alone. Temperature increases according to the theory would increase by an additional 30% or so with CO2 doubling.

Regardless, this is what the data shows. Again, the possibility of higher sensitivity is speculative. If this and the paper's estimates match the IPCC then I don't know what all the alarm over AGW is for.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

Do you accept the finding of the scientists? It wrecks your doomsday scenario.

I've argued for some time that the climate sensitivity can't be as high as the IPCC says it is or could be. See, for example, http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/lowdown/805-scientific-questions-climate-science.html

Observational estimates of climate sensitivity have been made for years now that were no where near as high as the IPCC has been saying. So far the IPCC has been refractory to that information, but it is increasingly hard to ignore now that the models have failed so badly.




You really need to go with the Scientists tat 3G likes that have the range between 1 and 6.4 degrees.
 
Re: A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: Climate sensitivity to CO2 = 1.16 d...

You really need to go with the Scientists tat 3G likes that have the range between 1 and 6.4 degrees.

Meh. You only get as high as 4 or 6 by adding in speculative stuff that no one has observed in nature. Do a straightforward determination of (transient) climate sensitivity from historical data and it comes out to be about 1.5 or so.
 
Back
Top Bottom