Finally some recognition of all the anecdotal weather we’ve been talking about here – Anthony
World Meteorological Organization
Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:15am IST
LONDON (Reuters) – The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday.
The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.
Global temperatures vary annually according to natural cycles. For example, they are driven by shifting ocean currents, and dips do not undermine the case that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing long-term global warming, climate scientists say.
Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino.
“We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years,” said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO.
“Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say.”
“Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it’s warmer than average,” added Baddour.
The global mean temperature to end-July was 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the UK-based MetOffice Hadley Centre for climate change research said on Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000.
“Of course at the beginning of the year there was La Nina, and that would have had the effect of suppressing temperatures somewhat as well,” Met Office meteorologist John Hammond said.
Hi Max,
To your first answer, firstly, that is not evidence of your claim. As I have already discussed, the paper you quote from makes no assertions whatsoever as to net cloud feedback over time. You state “He quantifies the net overall impact of clouds” and then quote “Our measured sensitivity of total (LW+SW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature is –6.1 W/m^2 °K”, but your quotation is incomplete. The next sentence reads: “This indicates that the net (SW + LW) radiative effect of clouds during the evolution of the composite ISO is to cool the ocean-atmosphere system during its tropospheric warm phase, and to warm it during its cool phase.” At this point, it needs to be understood what he has said about sensitivity, which works both ways! This is emphatically not evidence of your claim that “net cloud feedback is likely to be negative and strong”.
Secondly, you say: “Spencer has published several other papers since then essentially reiterating his findings of negative feedback from clouds”. Can you please give me references to these? I am not aware of any such papers.
Regarding your second answer, I will respond in kind:
“In response to global warming, the cooling effect of clouds on climate might be enhanced or weakened” means exactly that.
“models exhibit a large range of global cloud feedbacks, with roughly half of the climate models predicting a more negative CRF in response to global warming, and half predicting the opposite ” means exactly that.
I could point out further apparent inconsistencies in the section which you quote, for example:
“In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs
would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006). The water vapour feedback, operating alone on top of this, would at least double the response.”(p.631)
– so that’s 2.4C, not 1.9C even before considering other feedbacks, including clouds.
We appear to have a stand-off.
However, I apologise for suggesting you were blagging it , which was discourteous. Perhaps I might also ask you to reconsider statements such as “Please read his report and subsequent follow-up papers more thoroughly, Steven”, which is attempting to be patronising, and thus also discourteous?
Regards,
Steven
Reply:Look, let’s stop with “who started it” and just go back to being respectful with each other. No one has to point out previous discourtesies any longer. We know this is tough when discussions get heated. We just ask that you try.~charles the moderator
Charles – point taken. It’s more interesting to discuss the issues, for sure.
Max,
I’ve just ‘signed off’ on another thread, so this is by the way of saying cheerio. It was kinda fun debating with you,
Regards,
Steven
Hi Steven,
Sorry you are “signing off”.
I showed you beyond the shadow of a doubt that IPCC cited GCMs that ALL assume a positive feedback from clouds, strong enough to increase the 2xCO2 sensitivity including all feedbacks from 1.9°C (excluding clouds) to 3.2°C (including clouds), stating unequivocally that this strong feedback was assumed in all of the climate models.
You did not even acknowledge this information.
Now to your statement, “As I have already discussed, the paper you quote (from Spencer) makes no assertions whatsoever as to net cloud feedback over time.”
How do you define “time”, Peter? Please be a bit more specific.
I have given you Spencer’s claims. You may not like them. You may not agree with them. But you cannot refute that these are his claims, based on the physical observations he and his colleagues made. He states that the net feedback from clouds is negative, based on observations over several years, rather than positive (as assumed in all the models cited by IPCC). He goes further in saying that these new findings should be considered in the climate models to resolve the current uncertainties relating to cloud feedbacks.
Steven, you are following the path of many AGW-proponents when their arguments have been refuted with facts. [snip]
I’m really sorry, because I honestly had a higher opinion of you earlier.
Have fun on your “new site”.
Regards,
Max
Here is a part of the conclusion from Spencer:
“This decrease in ice cloud
coverage is nominally supportive of Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared
iris’’ hypothesis. While the time scales addressed here are
short and not necessarily indicative of climate time scales, it
must be remembered that all moist convective adjustment
occurs on short time scales. Since these intraseasonal
oscillations represent a dominant mode of convective var-iability
in the tropical troposphere, their behavior should be
considered when testing the convective and cloud parame-terizations
in climate models that are used to predict global warming.”
“nominally supportive” (by name only – not in reality)?
time scales are short and not indicative of climate time scales
I am so sorry to see Steven leave. But I understand.
Joel has answered almost all the questions. In the next couple of weeks I do not have much time to devote for these things. But a quick note: the quality of a college football team is generally decided by polls by coaches (or people who are highly skilled to make those judgments), best universities in the U.S. (by both U.S. News and World Report or the older Gourman Reports) is decided by a scoring system, based on opinions from people with intimate knowledge of the system, etc. Quality of journals and papers are done in a similar way. People in the field knows the best journals in the field – they are venues where it is difficult to publish and with a higher rejection rate, the level of sophistication involved in the work is higher, most people in the field would like to publish in those journals, where papers have appeared in the past that changed the course of that field, etc. As Joel says, impact factor is one way to judge that. Ultimately such judgments are made by people working in the field. Certainly Energy and Environment doesn’t qualify as one of them. Papers with characteristics that would make them acceptable in such journals are quality papers. Beck’s or Armstrong’s papers are not among them.
On the funding question, I completely disagree with the common assumption here from AGW skeptics, that there is some type of bias here. No one writes a proposal saying that they are going to disprove AGW – of course proposal topics are much more sophisticated than that. Apart from NIH (that requires a hypothesis based proposal), none of the other Federal agencies require a conclusion upfront in the proposal to be proven (or falsified at the end). I do not see any bias in proposing climate sensitivity studies for CFCs. I have been in many of these review panels, and in my field I have not seen any such automatic bias as it has been portrayed. Even in NIH where the hypothesis and what the researcher expect to be the outcome about the hypothesis are clearly indicated, I do not see any noticeable bias to make a difference. But even if hundreds of people with direct experience of the review process attest to this, I am sure the claims to the contrary will persist.
Coming back to Steven’s point, if Spenser’s work is that monumental, I would expect a whole lot of researchers to refer and cite his work. The last time I checked, he had just four citations – that does not impress me as a discovery that will alter the course of climate science (unlike his and his followers claims in blogs). Again, I do not see any bias here, some of his earlier papers (about satellite temperature measurements) were cited hundreds of times.
I appears to me that many unjustifiable assumptions have to me made before one could claim that “you are following the path of many AGW-proponents when their arguments have been refuted with facts.” AGW refuted by facts? Many AGW proponents paths, etc. Most climate scientists, with equal or better credentials than Spencer or Lindzen, would disagree with the assumptions and the conclusions here. Since it would be impossible for that to convince a dedicated AGW skeptic, lengthy discussions on these would not be a productive use of time.
Correction, last paragraph. Instead of “I appears to me that many..” it is “It appears…”, otherwise, I might get spelling details as I received earlier about “assume” !!
Steven Talbot says: “so that’s 2.4C, not 1.9C even before considering other feedbacks, including clouds.”
Actually, there is a negative feedback that comes in…namely the lapse rate feedback…and that is the reason why the IPCC arrives at the 1.9 C estimate in the absence of cloud feedbacks. However, it is interesting to consider what the lapse rate feedback is due to: namely, it stems the prediction that the warming will be amplified as you go up in the troposphere in the tropics…and hence, it will not take as large a temperature rise at the surface in order to cause the temperature to rise enough in the most relevant region of the atmosphere enough to increase the radiative emission from the earth back to the point where we are in radiative balance again.
Now, most people on this site seem to believe some observational data that seems to suggest that such tropical tropospheric amplification is not occurring…and hence the models are wrong on this point…even though there is increasing evidence (from other data and from attempts to correct the observational data from known artifacts) that the problems lie not with the models but with that observational data itself. (Many also seem to mistakenly believe that this tropical tropospheric amplification is a signal specifically of warming due to greenhouse gases, which it most emphatically is not.)
Interestingly, I haven’t heard any of the folks embracing this idea that there is no tropospheric amplification in the tropics extending it to its logical conclusion by arguing that therefore the proposed negative lapse rate feedback should be absent or mainly absent…and hence that the total feedback from water vapor + lapse rate should be more strongly positive than the IPCC has estimated!
Note to John McLondon
Hi John,
In quoting some extracts from the Spencer et al. paper on cloud feedbacks, you omitted these key sentences from the abstract:
“The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization. These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming prediction.”
Regards,
Max
Hi John,
Without going into too many long-winded plaidoyers or excercises in word-parsing one way or the other, let’s wrap up the key points in the cloud feedback discussion.
1. IPCC models all assume a strong positive feedback from clouds
2. IPCC model outputs indicate a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for CO2 alone of around 0.8°C
3. IPCC model outputs indicate a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for CO2 including all feedbacks (except clouds) of around 1.9°C
4. IPCC model outputs indicate a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity for CO2 including all feedbacks (including clouds) of around 3.2°C
5. This implies that the cloud feedback contributes 1.3°C to the 2xCO2 sensitivity
6. IPCC concedes that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”
Other studies (Ramanathan et al.) have also expressed this “uncertainty”, stating, “ the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain”.
The physical observations of Spencer et al. raise serious doubt on the IPCC assumptions of strong positive feedback from clouds, indicating a strong negative feedback instead.
This negative feedback was previously hypothesized by Lindzen.
No one has disproved or refuted the findings of Spencer et al. to date.
That’s the summary for now John.
Everything else is speculation, rationalization or hype.
Regards,
Max
I am with Joel… All observations MUST be corrected to match the models…
Joel Shore makes a good point in posting:
“Steven Talbot says: ‘so that’s 2.4C, not 1.9C even before considering other feedbacks, including clouds.’
Actually, there is a negative feedback that comes in…namely the lapse rate feedback…and that is the reason why the IPCC arrives at the 1.9 C estimate in the absence of cloud feedbacks.”
In Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
On p.631 IPCC states:
“The water vapor feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback, and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%.”
This would translate into a temperature response of 1.5°C, excluding the feedbacks from clouds or surface albedo.
Using these feedback parameters, the simplified 2xCO2 feedback temperature response according to IPCC would be:
2xCO2 alone +0.8°C (p.758, Stefan-Boltzmann)
Water Vapor +1.5°C
Lapse rate -0.8°C
Sub-total 1 +1.5°C (p.631)
Albedo +0.4°C
Sub-total 2 +1.9°C (p.633)
Clouds +1.3°C
Total, all feedbacks +3.2°C (p.633)
However one looks at lapse rate per se, it is the combined impact of all feedbacks that is important, of course.
Observations by Spencer et al. (after IPCC AR4 was published) have shown us that the very strong positive feedback from clouds assumed by all IPCC models may be incorrect, stating that “These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming prediction.”
Makes sense to me.
Max
Joel wrote: “Now, most people on this site seem to believe some observational data that seems to suggest that such tropical tropospheric amplification is not occurring…and hence the models are wrong on this point…even though there is increasing evidence (from other data and from attempts to correct the observational data from known artifacts) that the problems lie not with the models but with that observational data itself. (Many also seem to mistakenly believe that this tropical tropospheric amplification is a signal specifically of warming due to greenhouse gases, which it most emphatically is not.)”
Mike Bryant observed very succinctly, “I am with Joel… All observations MUST be corrected to match the models…”
Mike has pinpointed the most fundamental problem of the computer models used to project alarming rates of anthropogenic global warming.
The computer modelers start believing in themselves and closing their eyes to physical observations that refute their model assumptions.
They even devise complicated “hindcasting” programs to show that their earlier “forecasting” ability was “almost correct” or “other than that, it was OK”.
Anything that does not fit the model forecasts is either ignored or rationalized away as “noise”, “outliers” or “artefact”.
In his book “The Black Swan”, Nassem Taleb suggests “the presence of an ingrained tendency in humans to underestimate outliers – or Black Swans”.
In describing the problem of “expert predictions”, Taleb goes on to write, “You cannot ignore self-delusion. The problem with experts is that they do not know what they do not know. Lack of knowledge and delusion about the quality of your knowledge come together – the same process that makes you know less also makes you satisfied with your knowledge.”
Taleb points out, “we are demonstably arrogant about what we think we know. We certainly know a lot, but we have a built-in tendency to think that we know a little bit more that we actually do, enough of that little bit to occasionally get into serious trouble.”
In addressing this human tendency, which he calls “epistemic arrogance”, Taleb states, “our knowledge does grow, but it is threatened by greater increases in confidence, which make our increase in knowledge at the same time an increase in confusion, ignorance and conceit.”
All one has to do to understand Taleb’s words is read the IPCC 2007 “Summary for Policymakers” report.
Max
Taleb’s first name is Nassim (not Nassem). Sorry for typo.
Actually, I often wonder why this is put forward. If this “hot spot” happens regardless of warming method, and therefore it’s failure to appear does not “disprove” GHG as the reason for CC, then I must ask: surely it’s failure to be detected indicates either 1) there hasn’t been significant warming of any sort or 2) the models are significantly incorrect.
Hi Steven,
Thanks for taking the time to actually have a look – unlike Joel, who simply suggested I used “dodgy” data!
Anyway, you said
Yes, but which is cause and which is affect?
Note to Max:
As I said earlier, Spencer could be right, it is too early to tell and I
personally will not depend on that one paper alone to make a conclusion. No one has conclusively disproved his conclusion, but no one else has proven that either. I have to revise my earlier comment, only two papers (not four) cited
Spencer (which is extremely low, if this is indeed a major development), and I do not see any of them verifying the conclusion to be true. Spencer himself is not firm on his conclusion (his own words: “POTENTIALLY supporting Lindzen’s “infrared iris” and “is NOMINALLY supportive of Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared iris’’ hypothesis” “). Lindzen’s earlier conclusion was questioned by many (D. L. Hartmann and M. L. Michelsen; Fu, Baker, Hartmann; Lin, Wielicki, Chambers, Hu, Xu; NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris2.html) and the following 2008 publication (after Spencer’s work was out) concludes that things are more complex than Spencer’s claims.
In summary, Spencer may correct. But until that is verified by multiple groups, I will not put much importance to it.
—
Variations of tropical upper tropospheric clouds with sea surface
temperature and implications for radiative effects
Su H, Jiang JH, Gu Y, Neelin JD, Kahn BH, Feldman D, Yung YL, Waters JW,
Livesey NJ, Santee ML, Read WG
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES Volume: 113 Issue: D10 Article Number: D10211 Published: MAY 31 2008
Abstract: The variations of tropical upper tropospheric (UT) clouds with
sea surface temperature (SST) are analyzed using effective cloud
fraction from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on Aqua and ice
water content (IWC) from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) on Aura. The
analyses are limited to UT clouds above 300 hPa. Our analyses do not
suggest a negative correlation of tropical-mean UT cloud fraction with
the cloud-weighted SST (CWT). Instead, both tropical-mean UT cloud
fraction and IWC are found to increase with CWT, although their
correlations with CWT are rather weak. The rate of increase of UT cloud
fraction with CWT is comparable to that of precipitation, while the UT
IWC and ice water path (IWP) increase more strongly with CWT. The
radiative effect of UT clouds is investigated, and they are shown to
provide a net warming at the top of the atmosphere. An increase of IWP
with SST yields an increase of net warming that corresponds to a
positive feedback, until the UT IWP exceeds a value about 50% greater
than presently observed by MLS. Further increases of the UT IWP would
favor the shortwave cooling effect, causing a negative feedback.
Sensitivities of UT cloud forcing to the uncertainties in UT CFR and IWC
measurements are discussed.
Hi John,
Thanks for latest post expressing your reservations about Spencer et al.
We’ve discussed the uncertainties surrounding the positive feedback from clouds as assumed in all the GCMs cited by IPCC but apparently contradicted by more recent physical observations (Spencer et al.). You felt that the jury is still out on these recent observations, while I say they could provide compelling evidence for a strong net negative feedback from clouds, rather than a strong net positive feedback, as assumed by IPCC.
But let’s move on to water vapor feedback, where I also see some major inconsistencies. These are (just like with the clouds) based on the observation that IPCC model assumptions do not check with actual physical data, which I would see as a basic IPCC weakness. But let me be more specific.
In discussing projections from GCM studies, IPCC AR4 WG1 (Chapter 10, p.758) states that the mean radiative forcing for doubled atmospheric CO2 is a net 3.67 W/m^2 (no feedbacks). This translates to a 2xCO2 warming of <1°C. (If you use the forcing estimates cited by IPCC, you arrive at 0.76°C, so let’s round this up to 0.8°C and stick with this value.) Note that IPCC cites a value of 1°C (and Hansen even inflates this to 1.2°C).
On p.759 (Chapter 10) IPCC states, “in response to a doubling in atmospheric CO2, the specific humidity increases by approximately 20% through much of the troposphere”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
The assumed 20% increase in specific humidity forms the basis for modeled water vapor feedback and, along with the other feedback assumptions, for the statement (p.749), “An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, is likely to lie in the range of 2°C to 4.5°C range, with a most likely value of about 3°C.”
This estimate includes net positive feedbacks from both water vapor and clouds, as well as a negative feedback from lapse rate and a positive feedback from surface albedo.
In Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each in W/m^2 °C is:
+1.80 ±0.18 [Water vapor]
-0.84 ±0.26 [Lapse rate]
+0.26 ± 0.08 [Surface albedo]
+0.69 ± 0.38 [Clouds]
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
On p.631 IPCC states:
“The water vapor feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback, and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%.”
This would translate into a temperature response of 1.5°C, excluding the feedbacks from clouds or surface albedo.
On p.632 IPCC states:
“Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an apparently constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity [RH]) under global scale warming.”
On p. 633 IPCC states:
“Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.”
Using these feedback parameters, the 2xCO2 feedback temperature response would be:
+0.8°C [2xCO2] (p.758)
+1.5°C [Water Vapor]
-0.8°C [Lapse Rate]
+1.5°C [Sub-total 1] (p.631)
+0.4°C [Albedo]
+1.9°C [Sub-total 2] (p.633)
+1.3°C [Clouds]
+3.2°C [Total, all feedbacks] (p.633)
A 2004 study by Minschwaner and Dessler refers to actual NASA satellite measurements of water vapor, showing a “lower than expected” increase in tropospheric water vapor content with higher sea surface temperatures.
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
The results cited for specific humidity variations are (p.1279):
1.8 to 4.2 ppm/C with an average of 3 ppm/C (Minschwaner, observed data)
8.5 to 9.5 ppm/C (Minschwaner model)
This compares with:
20 ppm/C (climate models used by IPCC = constant relative humidity)
In other words, the M+D model predicts two to three times the amount of water vapor increase as actually observed by the satellites and the IPCC models assume a value two times higher than the M+D model.
Rather than finding either a “constant relative humidity” or a “20% increase in specific humidity” as assumed by the IPCC GCMs, the M-D report concludes, “The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity”. “We find that relative humidity in the UT decreases with increasing surface temperature, on the order of 3%-5% per degree of surface warming.”
The M-D model results conclude that the increase in water vapor will be around 40% to 50% of the values assumed in the IPCC GCMs. It estimates a climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 including water vapor feedback (but excluding clouds and the other feedbacks) of 1.2°C.
A 2007 report by Wentz et al. states that satellite observations indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere increases at a rate of 7% per Kelvin of surface warming (a slightly lower figure that that reported from the M-D models, but still a bit higher than the actual M-D satellite observations). http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/short/317/5835/233
In other words, to summarize: satellite data from physical observations show that IPCC model assumptions for water vapor feedback are overstated by a factor of around five times.
This is a major discrepancy, raising serious doubts regarding the IPCC assumption of an overall 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks (excl. clouds) of 1.9°C.
If we correct the IPCC model assumptions on the magnitude of the water vapor feedback based on the cited physical observations on water vapor increase with temperature and assume that clouds have neither a net positive nor a net negative feedback, we are left with a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 1.0°C to 1.3°C (or around one-third of the value currently calculated by the climate models).
If we use Spencer’s observations to correct for clouds, we are back to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7°C to 0.8°C, as estimated by Lindzen or Shaviv + Veizer.
In summary, it appears that IPCC is using model assumptions that lead to a calculated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (with all feedbacks) that is three to four times as high as that which would be supported by physical observations.
Since this is the basis for all IPCC global warming projections, it appears that these should be taken “with a grain of salt”.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Thank you very much for the detailed response. However, this (about water vapor) is an area I do not really know enough to make any comments. NASA’s own site tells us that measurements on water vapor content is at the most 30 % reliable. It is very difficult to make any useful comments with that accuracy. So, unfortunately, I cannot add much here on this topic.
May be Joel could respond? Joel, are you around?
Having said all these, I really hope Spencer is correct, that there is some mechanism out there that is stabilizing the rise in temperature from CO2. We have so much energy resource (like methane hydrates, coal and natural gas), it would be very nice to use them, if the cloud system is capable of filtering out AGW.
“…the problems lie not with the models but with that observational data itself.”
-Joel Shore
’nuff said…
“Having said all these, I really hope Spencer is correct, that there is some mechanism out there that is stabilizing the rise in temperature from CO2.” John London
I’ll go out on a limb and say there is a Stabilizer since burning fossil fuel is NOT immoral.
statePoet1775,
“I’ll go out on a limb and say there is a Stabilizer since burning fossil fuel is NOT immoral.”
One small problem is that it is immoral if it hurts (or will hurt) someone without proper justification, so we may not be able to comment on its moral aspects until we settle what it does to the environment.
But you have no idea how strongly I wish your statement to be true – that we could use our God given resources without feeling guilty about hurting others (particularly the poor – see here for example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93706882 ) now or in the future.
I thought oil was ancient marine animal given, not fictitious sky daddy given.
[As there are no religious discussions allowed here this includes making fun of religion as well. It is essentially a personal attack on the other’s beliefs. This comment is not meant to launch a discussion on board policy. It is meant to ask posters to be civil to one another~charles the moderator]
manacker says:
I’m not sure how you get 0.76°C. I get 0.98°C if I use your 3.67 W/m^2 value. (Note that the albedo for incoming solar radiation on the earth is ~0.31 but for the wavelengths of the outgoing infrared radiation, the earth acts like a blackbody.)
Besides the quibble in regards to the doubling of CO2 alone, which I think should be at least 1.0°C, I think your numbers are basically correct here. (As you noted in regards to Hansen, I have seen others say 1.1 or 1.2 C although I am not sure how they get this.)
However, there are some error bars on these numbers…in particular, the cloud feedback…which is why although the model average for total feedbacks may be +3.2°C, there is considerable spread amongst the model and the IPCC likely range is 2.0 to 4.5°C. [Which, I guess means they are saying that the cloud feedback is likely positive, but the range is from just about neutral to quite strongly positive.]
“But you have no idea how strongly I wish your statement to be true – that we could use our God given resources without feeling guilty about hurting others (particularly the poor – see here for example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93706882 ) now or in the future.” John McLondon
Until we know positively that it is harmful, then it is IRRESPONSIBLE to damage the world’s economy which by the way could lead to World War as the Great Depression led to WWII. These are dangerous times.