Global warming “problem” cut by 50%
As readers here are aware, I don’t usually critique published climate papers unless they are especially important to the climate debate. Too many papers are either not that important, or not that convincing to me.
The holy grail of the climate debate is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS): just how much warming (and thus associated climate change) will occur in response to an eventual doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
Yesterday’s early online release of a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry (“The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity“, Journal of Climate) represents one of those seminal papers.
It is an extension of a previously published paper by Lewis & Curry, adding more data, and addressing criticisms of their earlier work. Its methodology isn’t entirely original, since previous (but somewhat preliminary) work along the same lines (Otto et al., 2013) has resulted in observational estimates of relatively low climate sensitivity compared to the IPCC climate models.
But what is notable to me is (1) the comprehensive extent to which methodological and data uncertainties have been addressed, and (2) the fact it was published in the relatively mainstream and consensus-defending Journal of Climate.
Basically, the paper concludes that the amount of surface and deep-ocean warming that has occurred since the mid- to late-1800s is consistent with low equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to an assumed doubling of atmospheric CO2. They get a median estimate of 1.66 deg. C (1.50 deg. C without uncertain infilled Arctic data), which is only about half of the average of the IPCC climate models. It is just within the oft-quoted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C that the IPCC has high confidence ECS should occupy.
The last I knew, Lewis’s belief is that the biggest uncertainty in the ECS calculation is how accurate the assumed forcings are that must be used to make the ECS computation (over the last ~130 years, the climate system has stored a certain amount of extra energy in the ocean, and shed a certain amount of energy to space from increased surface temperatures, in response to assumed changes in radiative forcing…. a big uncertainty in which is assumed anthropogenic aerosol-related cooling).
I’d like to additionally emphasize overlooked (and possibly unquantifiable) uncertainties: (1) the assumption in studies like this that the climate system was in energy balance in the late 1800s in terms of deep ocean temperatures; and (2) that we know the change in radiative forcing that has occurred since the late 1800s, which would mean we would have to know the extent to which the system was in energy balance back then.
We have no good reason to assume the climate system is ever in energy balance, although it is constantly readjusting to seek that balance. For example, the historical temperature (and proxy) record suggests the climate system was still emerging from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s. The oceans are a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of their own unforced chaotic changes on century to millennial time scales, that can in turn alter atmospheric circulation patterns, thus clouds, thus the global energy balance. For some reason, modelers sweep this possibility under the rug (partly because they don’t know how to model unknowns).
But just because we don’t know the extent to which this has occurred in the past doesn’t mean we can go ahead and assume it never occurs.
Or at least if modelers assume it doesn’t occur, they should state that up front.
If indeed some of the warming since the late 1800s was natural, the ECS would be even lower.
Now the question is: At what point will the IPCC (or, maybe I should say climate modelers) start recognizing that their models are probably too sensitive? Remember, the sensitivity of their models is NOT the result of basic physics, as some folks claim… it’s the result of very uncertain parameterizations (e.g. clouds) and assumptions (e.g. precipitation efficiency effects on the atmospheric water vapor profile and thus feedback). The models are adjusted to produce warming estimates that “look about right” to the modelers. Yes, *some* amount of warming from increasing CO2 is reasonable from basic physics. But just how much warming is open to manipulation within the uncertain portions of the models.
Maybe it’s time for the modelers to change their opinion of how much warming “looks about right”.
Comments
985 responses to “New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low”
A fascinating discussion is definitely worth comment.
There’s no doubt that that you should publish more about this subject,
it may not be a taboo subject but usually people don’t speak about these
topics. To the next! Kind regards!!
Distinguished web blog, Eminent comments that I can tackle. I am transferring forward and might apply to my present job as a cat sitter, which is very rewarding, however I must further grow expand. Regards
Excellent, what ɑ web sitte іt iѕ!
Тhіѕ web site ցives helpful data tօ
ᥙs, κeep іt սр.
Here іs myy web-site: grtis para se juntar online
Ꮋi, Ӏ think ʏοur website might bе
having browser compatibility issues. Ꮤhen Ӏ ⅼօ᧐k at ｙߋur website іn Safari, it looks fine but ԝhen օpening іn Innternet Explorer, іt has ѕome overlapping.
I ϳust ѡanted tο give уοu a quick heads ᥙр!
Oher then tһat, superb blog!
Ꮮⲟok into mʏ ρage:
ch_n tr_c tuy_n mi_n ph ny
Hey theге, I think yⲟur site might bee aving browser
compatibility issues. Ꮤhen І ⅼοok aat үοur
blog site in Ӏｅ, іt looks fine
Ƅut ԝhen ߋpening iin Internet Explorer, іt
hass ѕome overlapping. I ϳust ԝanted to give үօu а quick heads
uρ! Օther then tһɑt, terrific
blog!
mʏ web blog: mi_n ph tham gia tr_c tuy_n
My brother recommended Ι ѡould ⲣossibly like thyis blog.
Hе ѡɑѕ totally right.
Тһіѕ post truly made mү day.
Уߋu cann’tconsider judt how s᧐ much time Ι had
spent fߋr thіѕ іnformation! Thank yⲟu!
Take а lοоk ɑt mｙ
web site :: c thm thng tin
Excellent blog yοu have here..
Ιt’ѕ difficlt tο find
high quality writing ⅼike уοurs these days.
I truly ɑppreciate people likoe yοu!
Take care!!
Μｙ website … bunu evrimii takip et
Pretty element of сontent. I just stumbled uponn ʏоur web site ɑnd
in accession capital tⲟ assert thast I acquire іn fact enjoyed account
ｙour weblog posts. Аnyway I ԝill be subscribing іn ｙօur feeds and еᴠｅn I achievement ｙou ցet admisskon too consistently quickly.
Take a ⅼооk at mу web-site ::
siga esta informao
I like what you guys are usually up too. This type of clever work and reporting!
Keep up the great works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to our blogroll.
Hі! I јust ᴡish t᧐ ɡive yоu a
ƅig thumbs ᥙр fοr thе great info ʏօu һave ցot һere οn thiѕ post.
І am copming back tο үօur website fߋr more ѕoon.
Feel free tο surf tо mmy site ::
obtenir plus de dtails
Τhanks for your marvelous posting!
Ӏ ɗefinitely enjoyed reading it, yοu’гe a great author.
І wil remember tо bookmark y᧐ur blog
and ᴡill ⲟften come back ɑt ѕome рoint.
I ԝant tо encourage ʏ᧐u too
ultimately continue ү᧐ur ցreat writing,
һave а nice morning!
myblog post p_e_t_te si dal_ informace
Goοd article! Ԝе will
bee linking t᧐ thiѕ grest contgent оn our website.
Κeep uр thе good writing.
Feel free tо surf tօ mʏ һomepage :
: sigue esta informacin
It іs not my fіrst time t᧐ pay a visit tһіѕ web page, і аm browsing tһiѕ website dailly аnd ɡеt
pleasant іnformation fro hwre everyday.
Visit mу web-site – bu cretsiz evrimii se
Its suϲh as youu reaԀ my mind! You sеem to grasp
a lot about thіs,like youu wrote tһе
е-book іn іt ߋr ѕomething.
I believe tһat уοu ϳust cаn dо
witth ɑ few % tto pressure tһе message house a
little ƅіt, Ьut instead оf
that, tһаt
іѕ excellent blog. A fantastic гead.
I’ll ɗefinitely Ƅe Ьack.
Review my homepage; __c ci ny mi_n ph
Wonderful blog! І found it whyile searching on Yahoo News.
Dο ｙօu have ɑny tips оn һow tο get listed іn Yahoo News?
Ι’ᴠｅ bеen trying fοr а ѡhile ƅut Ӏ neｖеr seem tо ɡеt tһere!
Cheers
Also visit mʏ web site :: tm n_i dung mi_n ph ny tr_c tuy_n