From the BNL press release, some serious questions about climate sensitivity and aerosols.
Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
New report on climate change explores the reasons
January 19, 2010 UPTON, NY – Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth’s “climate sensitivity”—the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society (the early online release of the paper is available starting 19 January 2010; the link is given below), Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.
According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth’s atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8°F—well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time span. Schwartz’s analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1) Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.
“Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles,” said Schwartz, “it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth’s climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs.”
A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth’s temperature over the industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases. “This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove,” said Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.
A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of 3.6°F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.
The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth’s climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.
The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the uncertainty in Earth’s climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to “looking for the lost key under the lamppost.”
Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts. “We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don’t know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it.”
Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.
The early online release of the paper is available at AMS’s journals online site.
Founded in 1919, the AMS has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts. AMS publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic journals, sponsors multiple conferences annually, and directs numerous education and outreach programs and services. For more information see www.ametsoc.org.
Research at Brookhaven was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.
h/t to WUWT commenter “Don S”
The longer we go down the path of this climate change debate… the more we can compare IPCC doom and gloom projections vs actual data… the more we will see how bad the projections are basing all of the models on massive positive feedback loop assumptions.
The author provides arguments for the precautionary principle:
“Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts.
““We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don’t know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it.””
No Mr. Schwarz we don’t have to change the course of the ship.
Everything is fine.
“Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?”
Simple. Because the models are wrong.
“Schwartz’s analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1) Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.”
… and/or 3) it is possible, that we don’t have a clue.
“Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to “looking for the lost key under the lamppost.”
Exactly – they are only looking for one thing so there is an in-built confirmation bias to all of their models. That they can even include this statement and with a straight face say that CO2 is causing warming is incredible.
…or at least slow down before we hit an iceburg.
Then there is the hubris of men who believe they are at the helm of the planet.
Still no discussion of solar changes or Earth’s internal mechanisms for dealing with them.
These folks have a long way to go.
““Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts.”
Sorry,the current policy formulators are navigating a large ship in a fog of bad data while in deep waters while being told by a smart alecky city slicker pilot claims he drew a chart that says, “Here be monsters…”
Oh, I heard the reason for less warming was the heat “pipeline” got clogged up with BS from Gore,ETAL.
The most important conclusion from the paper,
“The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Ron de Haan (15:42:00) :
I agree, no matter what the empirical evidence shows, people’s “feelings” about using fossil fuels being a bad thing must be true.
Yes, it’s becoming alarming obvious that the IPCC computer models are wrong. Anyone of sound mind and reasonable intelligence can already see the IPCC is discredited. If global cooling trend continues, the disparity between the models and the real world will be so large everyone else outside the IPCC will feel the same way. I’m still waiting for the chairman of the IPCC to be charged with fraud.
BTW the graphic is excellent, I love showing the “models” 90% confidence! Anyone rational has to conclude the worthlessness of climate modeling.
Had never come across the “Looking for the lost key under the lampost” analogy, but it seems apposite
Wrong question dummy !
Why hasn’t expectation matched actual observed amount of warming or lack thereof ?
Answer; simple; you expected too much. Take what you get and quit buggin me.
Hmm… I wasn’t aware that the influences of heat -trapping gasses had been adequately “quantified” . At least not by everyone .
In the world of real science, scientists would by now be rethinking their theories.
But AGw is no longer real science.
Was it ever?
Well whoop de do ! the IPCC can say with 90% confidence, that the warming will be somewhere in a 4:1 range. I would tell the Scientists of the IPCC; your salaries will be somewhere within a 4:1 range; well with 90% confidence of course; there’s a 10% chance you won’t get a brass razoo, and we will ask for a refund of the grant moneys you already wasted.
And I see Dr Roy, is a tougher Hombre than I am; he puts their salary limits at only half of the IPCC’s best case (for the taxpayers.
Way to go there Dr Roy; hit them in the pocket book where it really counts.
Notice that this study is still not doing the basic science of questioning the assumptions.
They are seeking ways to wiggle around the discrepancy.
They are even still falling back on the ‘heat in the pipeline’ dodge.
The thing to do, in the face of crugate, and failed prediction after failed prediction is to go back to the basics and rebuild.
This study is in fact an admission of defeat, but they are trying to frame it differently.
A real scientist would go with what is known: that the reality is significantly divergent from the prediction, and build models to match the reality, looking for valid negative feedbacks besides aerolols, to see what is actually happening.
Jimmy Haigh (15:42:58) :
“Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?”
Simple. Because the models are wrong
————-
Reply: You’re telling me the earth didn’t toe the line? Are you telling me that (even with the “fudge factors” applied to the data) earth had the audacity to contradict the Cult of Global Warming?
Oh.
We will see more of these “soft AGW” papers from climate change experts (the ones who haven’t staked their reputations and their respective organization’s reputations on AGW) until there will be a complete turnaround.
After that it will be: “Well, we knew it all along, really. We all basically agreed, it was just the details that hadn’t been firmed up yet.”
And the revisionist history will continue.
That’s my prediction.
And if I’m wrong… well, I’ve got nothing to lose.
According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity…
1) Earth’s climate may be less sensitive…
2) reflection … in the atmosphere may be offsetting…
3) … may be a slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases.
But: We know we have to change the course of this ship…
If I produced an analysis like this, I would dig deeper to find at least one link to somthing before opening my mouth.
Added to the list which is now well over 500 papers,
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
Where is the warming? It will occur after one or more avalanche effects are triggered by the rising CO2 levels, possibly a cascading series of them, leading to ever-increasing catastrophic heating and unbearable temperatures. Why, we may end up as hot as Venus!
Unless of course the world is suddenly plunged into a new ice age, catastrophic cooling, which was recently shown to be possible since high CO2 concentrations existed during previous ice ages.
Because the science is settled, the effects of increasing concentrations are well known, we must accept that CO2 is such a dangerous substance that only a worldwide system of strict enforced carbon controls, with appropriate wealth redistribution, can save us from the catastrophic warming to come. Or catastrophic cooling. Whatever it turns out to be, which we can say with 100% certainty will be catastrophic.
B.S. They want me to pay for it.
SORRY, I’ll “steal” it whereever possible. These guys have TONS of money,
they don’t need to “tax” me again.
Someone, download and post, would you?
Thanks!