Climate Sensitivity to CO2 May Be Overestimated. (1 Viewer)

[nijato]

There was a lot of popular press about the research linked below:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum

Articles appeared in the
LA Times,
BBC, and others..

To make a long story short, with various caveats and further questions, the researchers estimate that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations are associated with global temperature rises of about 2.3 K. This is somewhat in contrast to the IPCC 2007 report which described a range of sensitivities from 2.0 - 4.5 K, with a best estimate of 3.0 K.

In other words, according to this peer-reviewed, widely accepted research, the climate system could be about 20 or 25% less responsive to CO2 concentrations than previously thought.

I was waiting for it to pop up here, posted by some smug deniers excited about the prospects of "warmers" being wrong again... but no. So why? I have a few hypotheses...

1. The researchers are very clear to indicate that this in no way reduces the seriousness of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, or its consequences.
2. To promote this view would be to accept agw.

At any rate, I think it's a great example of real science in process. New analytical techniques lead to a more refined understanding of climate systems.

It's the perfect example of why science and rational empiricism are the only objective way to understand the Universe: it is a self-correcting and self-critical worldview.

So... looks like the global temps in 2060 will be just 1 K hotter than today, not 2... that is of course more than the total observed warming from 1850 to present however... sorry Bangladesh.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Oh - no doubt - the planet will be fine. Plants will adjust, animals will freely migrate . . . it'll be fine.

It's how it will effect us that is the underlying concern . . . humans don't like two things:

1) Change that we cannot control
2) Change we did not initiate

 

[cpwill]

There was a lot of popular press about the research linked below:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum

Articles appeared in the
LA Times,
BBC, and others..

To make a long story short, with various caveats and further questions, the researchers estimate that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations are associated with global temperature rises of about 2.3 K. This is somewhat in contrast to the IPCC 2007 report which described a range of sensitivities from 2.0 - 4.5 K, with a best estimate of 3.0 K.

In other words, according to this peer-reviewed, widely accepted research, the climate system could be about 20 or 25% less responsive to CO2 concentrations than previously thought.

I was waiting for it to pop up here, posted by some smug deniers excited about the prospects of "warmers" being wrong again... but no. So why? I have a few hypotheses...

1. The researchers are very clear to indicate that this in no way reduces the seriousness of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, or its consequences.
2. To promote this view would be to accept agw.

At any rate, I think it's a great example of real science in process. New analytical techniques lead to a more refined understanding of climate systems.

It's the perfect example of why science and rational empiricism are the only objective way to understand the Universe: it is a self-correcting and self-critical worldview.

So... looks like the global temps in 2060 will be just 1 K hotter than today, not 2... that is of course more than the total observed warming from 1850 to present however... sorry Bangladesh.

funny you should say that.

...Following publication, Schmittner put his findings succinctly in an interview with The Australian: “very large changes” — of the sort we have grown to love hearing about from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — “can be ruled out [and] we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem.” (According to the study, that “problem” doesn’t seem to be too heinous, either. The international target is to keep temperature rises within 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, by which point CO2 concentrations are expected to approximately double; Schmittner predicts that the probable outcome of doubling CO2 concentrations would be between 1.7 degrees Celsius and 2.6 degrees Celsius, not the 3–4 degree change predicted by the IPCC.)

Science has an established history of running new studies only when they significantly add to or contradict previously published work. While Schmittner is very clearly not arguing that global warming isn’t happening, nor that mankind does not play a role in changing the earth’s climate, there is simply no way to read the report without concluding that the apocalyptic narrative is dead in the water.

“Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate data, especially on a global scale,” the research concludes, echoing a key and ever-present criticism leveled at alarmism. Put in layman’s terms, the conclusion is that if the climate were really so sensitive to change that doubled CO2 could yield cataclysmic warming, then, conversely, the low levels of carbon in the atmosphere 21,000 years ago should have precipitated a planet sufficiently icebound to extinguish all life...

 

[Deuce]

Didn't we just have this thread?

As before:

This isn't really newsworthy. Some estimates place sensitivity at lower than the 2.3 this research calculates. Others have placed it higher. I could just as easily say "climate sensitivity to CO2 may be underestimated," because that one paper put it at 3.7k.

Yeah. Might be.

 

[nijato]

Didn't we just have this thread?

As before:

This isn't really newsworthy. Some estimates place sensitivity at lower than the 2.3 this research calculates. Others have placed it higher. I could just as easily say "climate sensitivity to CO2 may be underestimated," because that one paper put it at 3.7k.

Yeah. Might be.

True true, this is just a single data point, but I like it as an example of how science is self-correcting. It does seem like this one variable is getting better quantified as closer to 2k than 4k though.

I was also hoping to show that once again, the real, peer-reviewed science is totally in agreement that AGW is real and a serious problem, even though climatologists continue their important work of figuring out more details.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The earth is far more resilient than fear mongers think.

 

[Deuce]

The earth is far more resilient than fear mongers think.

The earth isn't what we're concerned about. Short of a particularly large asteroid impact, the earth is going to be here for a while. Short of something almost as cataclysmic, "life" will survive for a while too. But we're not concerned about "life" in general, we're concerned for the well-being of one particular species. A species which is dependent upon a food supply that is more fragile than you think. (especially given our current, artificially inflated population)


It's also funny to hear the term "fear mongers" from a person who believes a massive, global, multi-decade, interdisciplinary conspiracy exists among scientists because they want more control over things for some undetermined reason.

 

[Deuce]

Roughly equivalent to saying that the hockey stick is "the central piece" of the climate debate:

Justin Bieber is talked about a lot in the media, therefore he is "the" central piece of musical talent. Because, you know, musical talent can be determined by how much the media talks about an artist.

 

[Renae]

When it's a Doom and Gloom "MAN IS EVIL" report, it's newsworthy and a reason to discuss.

Anything else must be dismissed as not newsworthy, paid for by big oil, or obviously fringe wacko wrong.

Why hasn't Climate Change been added to the CT as a subforum yet? Cause that where it belongs, as most of the threads are pro-theory that man is to blame for minor fluctuations in Earths Climate.

 

[nijato]

The earth is far more resilient than fear mongers think.

Right... which is we are quantifying exactly how resilient the current climate regime is.

 

[nijato]

When it's a Doom and Gloom "MAN IS EVIL" report, it's newsworthy and a reason to discuss.

Anything else must be dismissed as not newsworthy, paid for by big oil, or obviously fringe wacko wrong.

Why hasn't Climate Change been added to the CT as a subforum yet? Cause that where it belongs, as most of the threads are pro-theory that man is to blame for minor fluctuations in Earths Climate.

So... if we stick to science, we can avoid moral posturing e.g. "man is evil," and if we judge sources on their merits e.g. by sticking to peer-reviewed science publications, a lot of problems are avoided.

And yes, it is very well established that human activity impacts climate, so we call it a theory. What's the problem?

 

[Deuce]

When it's a Doom and Gloom "MAN IS EVIL" report, it's newsworthy and a reason to discuss.

Anything else must be dismissed as not newsworthy, paid for by big oil, or obviously fringe wacko wrong.

Why hasn't Climate Change been added to the CT as a subforum yet? Cause that where it belongs, as most of the threads are pro-theory that man is to blame for minor fluctuations in Earths Climate.

Previous estimates have put it even lower than 2.3k.

"New estimate of sensitivity falls within previous typical range of estimates" just... isn't really interesting to me.

As for conspiracy theories, you're the one who thinks there's a massive global conspiracy of scientists bent on distorting the truth.

You might see this as evidence in favor of your side, but I see it as the opposite. It's another confirmation that climate sensitivity is probably about where it is generally thought to be. And if you are accepting this 2.3k estimate, that must mean you are now accepting the premise that CO2 does influence climate to a measurable degree. Is this the case?

 

[Renae]

So... if we stick to science, we can avoid moral posturing e.g. "man is evil," and if we judge sources on their merits e.g. by sticking to peer-reviewed science publications, a lot of problems are avoided.

And yes, it is very well established that human activity impacts climate, so we call it a theory. What's the problem?

It's a failed theory with failed science pushed by political and economic greed. Man isn't changing the Earth's Atmosphere in any appreciable way, and nothing we can do will lower emissions that WE do put out, to make a difference.

 

[nijato]

It's a failed theory with failed science pushed by political and economic greed. Man isn't changing the Earth's Atmosphere in any appreciable way, and nothing we can do will lower emissions that WE do put out, to make a difference.

So then we get to this point in the argument where a denier makes a statement that is demonstrably, objectively wrong... which is when it gets frustrating. You are just. Simply. Wrong.

Nevermind the fact that hundreds of data sets and countless scientific endeavors striving for the highest possible standards of objectivity and precision are against you; you dismiss them out of hand. Reality is not the waters you ply. Objective observation and analysis to you is no more meaningful than speech and opinion. Words plucked from the aether carry as much weight as painstakingly thorough articles in Science or Nature in your world...

You exist in a world much like that before Galileo, when truth depended on the philosophy of supposed wise men, and not on data and observation. With a single statement, you dismiss not only modern climate science, but the entierty of the empirical scientific endeavor of the last 400 years. The Enlightenment dies a small death every time your mantra of ignorance is repeated. Oblivious to the clear damage your worldview is responsible for , you are instead proud of it, and wear it as a badge of honor. It admits you to the club; an anti-intellectual subculture that believes it somehow has uncovered the real truth and smugly shakes their heads at all of those stupid educated people, who are in fact far better informed than themselves.

If not so tragic, it would be hillarious, really.

Only you can know if your ignorance is willful or inadvertant, but you are just. Simply. Wrong.

 

[Renae]

So then we get to this point in the argument where a denier makes a statement that is demonstrably, objectively wrong... which is when it gets frustrating. You are just. Simply. Wrong.

Nevermind the fact that hundreds of data sets and countless scientific endeavors striving for the highest possible standards of objectivity and precision are against you; you dismiss them out of hand. Reality is not the waters you ply. Objective observation and analysis to you is no more meaningful than speech and opinion. Words plucked from the aether carry as much weight as painstakingly thorough articles in Science or Nature in your world...

You exist in a world much like that before Galileo, when truth depended on the philosophy of supposed wise men, and not on data and observation. With a single statement, you dismiss not only modern climate science, but the entierty of the empirical scientific endeavor of the last 400 years. The Enlightenment dies a small death every time your mantra of ignorance is repeated. Oblivious to the clear damage your worldview is responsible for , you are instead proud of it, and wear it as a badge of honor. It admits you to the club; an anti-intellectual subculture that believes it somehow has uncovered the real truth and smugly shakes their heads at all of those stupid educated people, who are in fact far better informed than themselves.

If not so tragic, it would be hillarious, really.

Only you can know if your ignorance is willful or inadvertant, but you are just. Simply. Wrong.

I spent ten years in the US Navy, as a meteorologist, what's your scientific background? Experience with weather, modeling and climate? Have you ever attended a three day conference on climate modeling as part of a Forecaster training evolution? Have you ever TALKED to a climatologist? Do you know what "Model Bias" means, WITHOUT googling it? Synoptic Pattern?

Didn't think so.

Let's take Kyoto, imagine, if you will, that the WHOLE WORLD EMBRACED it, and managed to meet the unattainable goals. What was the projected lowering of projected warming?

Was it:

5%
15%
25%
50%
75%

And further more, what is the projected warming Kyoto was supposed to halt?

1C
2C
4C
12C


Pop quiz hotshot, come back when you know what you're talking about, not just spewing feel good bull****.

 

[nijato]

It's a failed theory with failed science pushed by political and economic greed. Man isn't changing the Earth's Atmosphere in any appreciable way, and nothing we can do will lower emissions that WE do put out, to make a difference.

First, thank you for your service. Whatever the purpose of your pop quiz is is irrelevant. My post was a direct response to two demonstrably false statements you made in the post above.

1. Man isn't changing Earth's atmosphere in a significant way.

I'm sure you are aware that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen 40% since 1750, most of which is directly attributable to carbon combustion. Of the 700 million tons of carbon put in the atmosphere every day, nearly 500 million is from fossil sources.

2. Nothing can be done to lower emissions.

That's just silly- we could combust less fuel. If you mean the portion produced by aerobic respiration, you're right, but luckily that's less than 10% of emissions.

That's all. My intention was not to insult you, but to highlight your disregard for established fact.

 

[Renae]

First, thank you for your service. Whatever the purpose of your pop quiz is is irrelevant. My post was a direct response to two demonstrably false statements you made in the post above.

1. Man isn't changing Earth's atmosphere in a significant way.

I'm sure you are aware that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen 40% since 1750, most of which is directly attributable to carbon combustion. Of the 700 million tons of carbon put in the atmosphere every day, nearly 500 million is from fossil sources.

40%? Really. Where DO you get your numbers?

2. Nothing can be done to lower emissions.

That's just silly- we could combust less fuel. If you mean the portion produced by aerobic respiration, you're right, but luckily that's less than 10% of emissions.

That's all. My intention was not to insult you, but to highlight your disregard for established fact.

I never said we couldn't lower emissions, I said you cannot lower emissions enough to make a difference.

Teh point of the pop quiz was to show this.

CO2 levels, have inched up a bit in the last 61 years, were sitting around 390ppm or so according to this website I just hit.

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

80ppm increase in 60 years. How do we know that the lowered levels were normal and the rise is abnormal?

We don't.

We KNOW CO2 levels have been MUCH MUCH higher in the past. Life flourished. We know it's been warmer, and hella lot colder. Man isn't the driving force, and our efforts to lower our own impact need to be reasonable, most AGW means are NOT reasonable.

 

[danarhea]

There was a lot of popular press about the research linked below:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum

Articles appeared in the
LA Times,
BBC, and others..

To make a long story short, with various caveats and further questions, the researchers estimate that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations are associated with global temperature rises of about 2.3 K. This is somewhat in contrast to the IPCC 2007 report which described a range of sensitivities from 2.0 - 4.5 K, with a best estimate of 3.0 K.

In other words, according to this peer-reviewed, widely accepted research, the climate system could be about 20 or 25% less responsive to CO2 concentrations than previously thought.

I was waiting for it to pop up here, posted by some smug deniers excited about the prospects of "warmers" being wrong again... but no. So why? I have a few hypotheses...

1. The researchers are very clear to indicate that this in no way reduces the seriousness of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, or its consequences.
2. To promote this view would be to accept agw.

At any rate, I think it's a great example of real science in process. New analytical techniques lead to a more refined understanding of climate systems.

It's the perfect example of why science and rational empiricism are the only objective way to understand the Universe: it is a self-correcting and self-critical worldview.

So... looks like the global temps in 2060 will be just 1 K hotter than today, not 2... that is of course more than the total observed warming from 1850 to present however... sorry Bangladesh.

That is still enough of a rise to melt ALL the ice in the Arctic and Greenland. Goodbye New Orleans. Goodbye London. Goodbye Miami. Goodbye New York.

 

[nijato]

40%? Really. Where DO you get your numbers?

I never said we couldn't lower emissions, I said you cannot lower emissions enough to make a difference.

Teh point of the pop quiz was to show this.

CO2 levels, have inched up a bit in the last 61 years, were sitting around 390ppm or so according to this website I just hit.

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

80ppm increase in 60 years. How do we know that the lowered levels were normal and the rise is abnormal?

We don't.

We KNOW CO2 levels have been MUCH MUCH higher in the past. Life flourished. We know it's been warmer, and hella lot colder. Man isn't the driving force, and our efforts to lower our own impact need to be reasonable, most AGW means are NOT reasonable.

40% comes from the average of the 10000 years before 1750 of 280 ppm compared to 390 ppm in 2010.

Yes, yes, CO2 and temperatures have been higher and lower at various points... and life has done, and will do just fine. The thing to be concerned about is not life, but civilization - a much less resilient thing.

 

[Renae]

That is still enough of a rise to melt ALL the ice in the Arctic and Greenland. Goodbye New Orleans. Goodbye London. Goodbye Miami. Goodbye New York.

More Unions, More Government, answer to the problem!

 

[Deuce]

More Unions, More Government, answer to the problem!

More straw men!

 

[nijato]

More Unions, More Government, answer to the problem!

Yeah... the Greenland ice sheet melting is hundreds of years off... the sea level rises associated are in the sensationalist category IMHO.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah... the Greenland ice sheet melting is hundreds of years off... the sea level rises associated are in the sensationalist category IMHO.

This one we get to blame Al Gore for. While technically not a lie because he prefaced the discussion with "If the Greenland ice shelf melted completely," it did give the impression that this was somehow imminent and was therefore deceptive. He also gave the impression that "the science" says this will happen soon, so all the right-wingers point to that when they want to call someone a fear monger/chicken little/whatever childish label Limbaugh told them to use this week.

Gore has been widely criticized for it. Even by myself, right here on this very message board. Of course, MrV will still say Gore is my personal messiah or whatever, despite the fact that I've never even seen that film...

 

[nijato]

This one we get to blame Al Gore for. While technically not a lie because he prefaced the discussion with "If the Greenland ice shelf melted completely," it did give the impression that this was somehow imminent and was therefore deceptive. He also gave the impression that "the science" says this will happen soon, so all the right-wingers point to that when they want to call someone a fear monger/chicken little/whatever childish label Limbaugh told them to use this week.

Gore has been widely criticized for it. Even by myself, right here on this very message board. Of course, MrV will still say Gore is my personal messiah or whatever, despite the fact that I've never even seen that film...

Right... not incorrect, but misleading. It's not a bad flick, if you like powerpoint. In the end, I'm not sure if the film did more good or harm.

 

[Renae]

Yeah... the Greenland ice sheet melting is hundreds of years off... the sea level rises associated are in the sensationalist category IMHO.

Climate, changes. End of story.