
From NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change, according to a new NASA study published Dec. 14 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth. Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales. TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized.
There have been many attempts to determine TCR and ECS values based on the history of temperature changes over the last 150 years and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide. As part of that calculation, researchers have relied on simplifying assumptions when accounting for the temperature impacts of climate drivers other than carbon dioxide, such as tiny particles in the atmosphere known as aerosols, for example. It is well known that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet. In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight.
But the assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study. “The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables,” he said, adding that only within the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations.
In a NASA first, researchers at GISS accomplished such a feat as they calculated the temperature impact of each of these variables–greenhouse gases, natural and manmade aerosols, ozone concentrations, and land use changes–based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations. Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.
The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change–has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“>>> these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe <<<"
Carbon dioxide is not uniformly spread throughout the globe and does not therefore produce "uniform response." Suffice to look at GOSAT and OCO-2 CO2 maps.
Gus, CO2 levels are worldwide within +/- 2% of full scale worldwide, including large (20% in and out) seasonal changes and the NH-SH lag.
The main difference measured by satellites is at ground level over land. Even if that was 1,000 ppmv for the first 1,000 m, the net effect would be no more than 0.1°C extra warming…
If indeed, CO 2 levels are well mixed within 2%, there is no point in launching satellites to “measure” and “verify” CO 2 emissions according to Paris. Moreover, if the satellite measures in the first 1,000 m which is in fact where most weather happens -lower troposphere MPHs- one can wonder what will be left of verification of emission patterns once MPHs will redistribute air masses.
In the end, GISS is simply finding a new “button” to play with in order to get their ad-hoc results. One can be sure that once this one will be debunked, they’ll try another one.
If they are claiming 1.7°C now, how in the hell did the “underestimate” it in the past when they have been trying to hang onto 3-4°C?!!!?
Read the part about TCR vs ECR again. 3.0 C is ECR.
After reading AR4’s definition of and constraints on TCR, it appears to be another made up fantasy to excuse their failed ‘projections’.
Skeo.. you were wrong. you didnt read carefully. There are good arguments against this paper.
Yours is not one of them.
“TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future,…”
If believers can not win the debate over the short term, extending their predictions centuries into the future is the only recourse they have.
I read as far as the definition of ECS– “when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized”– and gave up in disgust! What a hoot!
Mosher, there is validity to this if and only if the forcings and feedbacks are understood, they are not, thus this is intellectual fantasy. Period.
The question should be if they now claim that they have been underestimating ECS/TCS in the past, how the hell to do they account for being almost 100% in OVER-ESTIMATION of global warming over the last 20 years?
Logic be damned, they were wildly wrong so what the hell? Let’s shout even louder:
WOLF , WOLF , WOLF !!
What , why is no body listening any more?
Because Settled Science™
Self proclaimed environ-meterologists fail to take into account the natural climatic response to a change in any one of the components of the water cycle. Gavin’s statement demonstrates this:
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
Given that view, he will consistently overestimate what’s going to happen in the future. A position he has already shown to be true based on his predictions that have not materialized.
What happened to our trusted CMIP5 models?
You never see any mention of the immediate response of the global biome to changes of each climate driver. It’s pretty simple, too. More water vapor? Stuff grows. More CO2? Stuff grows. Earth’s rotation slowing? Stuff grows. Warmer? Stuff grows. Glaciers disappear? Stuff grows. All of that stuff that grows on the surface is food for something. All the stuff that grows in the ocean is food for something. More food means more stuff grows. Stuff is Earth’s thermostat and climate driver regulator.
+1
“when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized.” in fantasy land. This is the logical delusion that there is a perfect climate that underlies the UN nonsense.
If you have a systematic underestimate, then somewhere you must have an overestimate. So, what if the overestimate has more effect on the “ëqulibrium” than the underestimate. .After all, they live in a world of tipping points, which suggests there is plenty of capacity for the underestimate.
In other words, they are arguing that natural variation should not exist because the warmists say so. So the sun is constant, clouds are constant, wind direction and strength are constant.
So in effect, sunspots do not exist, clouds are all the same and a cyclone and a breeze are the same.
The math that eliminates those natural variations must need a super computer that does not exist yet.
What about the greenhouse gas alleged to be the most influential, H2O. Do they mention that anywhere?
Sorry, Pamela, you beat me to it.
Mods, delete if you like.
“Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
And yet Trenberth insists the missing heat is hiding in the oceans and Karl insists the pause is due to underestimating SST.
And who outside of the warmist clan believes them?
ABC radio downunder will ;-(
and theyll broadcast it as gospel truth,
luckily..there is a summer break..so r williams n the scence show wont be raving it up till ? mm feb probably
Wouldn’t that apply to CFC’s too? Or is it a well mixed gas as UNEP says? I’m so confused.
Well its important to keep trying to make a reason for your projections to be right. History and reality are to blame if you are wrong.
It’s always ‘worse then we thought’ in the land of Government bureaucrats justifying their own jobs.
Spot on Harry!!
Quite an exceptional alarmist paper – published a few days after the close of Paris COP21. 🙂
I guess they watched the liberal debates last night and realized they don’t have much time left to play their little games, so now they’ve gone ” All In ” !!!!
Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere
===============
this is nonsense because the models are trained based on past temperatures, and show similar projections regardless of aerosol loading.
this is clearly impossible if the models were modelling reality, because the models with higher aerosol loads should have run cooler according to Schmidt, But they don’t.
Thus Schmidt is talking through his hat, because the models all give a reasonable fit to past temperatures, even though they vary widely in their aerosol loads.
And contrary to what Schmidt argues, virtually all the models are projecting hot as compared to observed temperatures. This is the opposite of what he concludes should be happening.
“then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen” …Schmidt said.
Nope, the models projections are overestimating. You have things reversed.
models are extremely good at projecting the answer the model builder believes to be correct. otherwise, the builder changes the model until it does.
Especially when your assumption begins with “…… and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide.”
you can be sure that not one climate model is bug-free. they all have errors. it is the nature of human beings that create models. the errors that corrected are those that bias the results in a direction opposite to what you believe to be correct. if the error delivers what appears to be the right answer, even if it completely wrong, you will not recognize the error.
“every non-trivial computer program has at least one undiscovered error.”
Computing tries very hard through classes, RFC and API to reduce that to none. Still to get there I suspect.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]
Actually, if you read ferdberple’s comment at 7:50AM, this means that the models should have shown LESS warming in the short term, and so are even MORE wrong.
Other than THAT, the science is settled.
Exemplified Wrongerness.
Because Gavin Schmidt looks like John Banner who played the sergeant-of-the-guard, Hans Schultz in the television comedy Hogan’s Heroes, I am reminded of these lines:
“I know nothing! I see nothing! I hear nothing!”
Still, it is nice to know they are still trying.
From Donald Rumsfeld:
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns- the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Umm, do you have Schmidt mixed up with someone else? He looks nothing like John Banner.
…he just acts like him.
I only saw it once, but there was a movie about an East German athlete who wanted to defect.
The athlete was played by the actress who played Klink’s secretary. The American who was playing the American trying to help her was Bob Crane (Hogan), the East German officer trying to stop the defection and his sergeant were the actors who played Klink and Schultz.
Wasn’t that good a movie, but the updating of the roles was cute.
The influence of aerosols is largely overestimated, not underestimated…
I made a comment in the early (better) days of RC on aerosols, comment #”6:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/
with no reaction of the guest authors of the article there (Ron Miller and Dorothy Koch from NASA GISS).
(Hé, RC is back on line!)
All depends of the weight you give to aerosols: they simply used it as compensation for the 1945-1976 cooling in the temperature record. If you give much weight to the negative impact of aerosols, then the TCS/ECS of CO2 is high and vv. The problem then is that these models which use a high aerosol/CO2 impact also are the models which now run (much) too hot…
See further a few comparisons I have done:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/aerosols.html
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
The latter shows that you can halve the impact of CO2 and use 1/4th of the aerosol impact and still show the same fit to the 20th century temperature trend…
I thought that it was the climate alarmist aer-soles that got it wrong :¬)
I suspect human aerosols have almost no impact at all. If they did China should see a major effect and they don’t. It is only major stratospheric eruptions that appear to inject enough aerosols to influence temperature. If I am right this leaves very little warming influence for CO2.
I think you are correct. Human aerosols and CO2 are not significant climate or temperature drivers. I think we will all agree that the major drivers of our climate are the sun and oceans. GHG are not responsible for the 33°C warmth we experience in the troposphere. They contribute a small percentage at best.
Thanks, Ferdinand. Your linked webpage shows you’ve done what the warmies should have already done. And should be doing in the now smoggier-than-ever Chinese areas. Of course, we know why such studies are of no interest to them…..
When all is said and done, it’s still just a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess).
More like “WAG” I’d say. There appears to be little or no science involved.
This may not even make the standard for a decent WAG.
Alternative acronym definition: Silly Wild Ass Guess
When all is said and done, there’s usually a lot more said, than done.
And therefore, logically the simplified opposite situation is true, with lessons to be learned being obvious.
John
So basically they are declaring that, whatever error they made in regard to not predicting the current “hiatus”, it was an even bigger error than they had previously made. It appears that their disease is incurable.
It’s hilarious they mention, “Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide.”, then avoid mentioning the most powerful GHG and the only one able to make a fast transient response at a regional level – water vapor.
Here it is again Gavin – model THIS!!! http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/wv-animated.gif
When has that ever happened in the past? What was the global temperature then?
“When has that ever happened in the past?” Well isn’t it obvious? http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
This news release and the abstract do not say what their new climate sensitivity estimates are.
The Supplemental says:
–> Transient Climate response 1.4C
–> Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity 2.3C
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate2888-s1.pdf
——————–
I get a kick out of they are just making up new “efficacy” estimates for all of the various forcings. Volcanoes impact the climate differently than Aerosols than GHGs than solar and so on.
What is the efficacy of aerosols (negative cooling effect) when they are increasing much faster in the northern hemisphere and it is the northern hemisphere that increasing in temperature fastest in their adjusted temperatures.
Illogical
Ithonk the word should be ‘ systemic’ not systematic
My god. How stupid. I think
” then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt (affiliated with GISS) said.”
This is one colossal assumption. When greenhouse gasses are by far the dominant climate driver. How can it possibly be known now that this will be the case at some point in future time? On what evidence? On all the hard evidence to date greenhouse gases are not the dominant driver. Or have I missed something?
Brian J in UK.
No, Brian, you haven’t missed anything. A fellow Brit (mathematician Mike Jonas) did an excellent analysis entitled “The Mathematics of CO2” which appeared in WUWT recently, and using the GCM equations, he did a “hindcast” of temperatures in earlier geological times. He concluded that CO2 accounted for 12% of the temperature effect. Willie Soon, who approached the matter from the perspective of the Sun’s effect, concluded that CO2 accounted for 14% of global warming. I’d hardly caonsider CO2 a “dominant driver”.
Try applying that maths to Venus. With 2400 times the concentration of CO2 and 230,000 times the mass of CO2 than Earth, the margin of error against reality gets quite hilarious! Feel free to adjust for solar proximity and albedo of course!