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”
Even using these four variables alone you would get wildly different results by arbitrarily fixing any parameter within it’s stated range and adjusting the others to reflect 100% lower tropospheric temperature.
By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect the four major gases are:
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
i guess they could count on forster and gregory, but just barely
Excellent, but I think the concept has already been taken Jeremy. It’s called post-normal “science”.
One man’s joke is another man’s career. Pretty sad, for the latter.
The article mentions “heat-trapping gases” 8 times. Can someone explain to me how these pesky CO2 molecules trap heat when they are free to transfer that heat to “non-heat-trapping gases”?
No comments or predictions on the future of climate, but for those many who visited for Part One of
CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas?,
thanks for visiting and Part Two is now published:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
Roger Pielke’s, Jr.’s blog for today points out flaws in that defense. An IPCC insider, Georg Kaser, revealed that:
1. He had alerted the IPCC staff about the error prior to publication, but they refused to correct it.
2. None of the other reviewers pointed out this glaring error.
3. The people in charge of the Asia section of the report lacked relevant expertise. (“They were without any knowledge of glaciology.”)
4. Everyone in the IPCC is now aware of the fault and intends to correct it in the next report. This means that Pachauri’s vigorous defense of the flawed report against criticism by a non-alarmist recent Indian government report implies that either he was unaware (out of touch) or aware (deceitful).
Here’s the link to Pielke’s article: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/stranger-and-stranger.html
I hope he can justify this statement. What can we ‘see’ that tells we have to change anything at all?
Once you add proper error bars to the estimate of GMST, then no warming at all.
The game is up for the IPCC and their shadowy masters.
Stephen Schwartz and coauthers did not visit the Surfacestations Gallery, get out of the laboratories and visit these stations, dig into CRU, Headley, GISS, …. and look at the basic raw data and method of their adjustments. What temperatures? Dr. Schwartz’ calculations rely on data hidden under Hansen, Jones %Co’s matresses. Thus it is no more than another pseudoscientific paper, as the basis is missing. I feel sorry for him.
“Worse than we thought”
The reason these AGW clowns are bemused at the refusal of the real world to obey their computerised prophesies is because they forgot to apply The First Law of Bullshit:-
When you are producing a line of Bullshit, NEVER start believing it yourself.
A corollary is the fact that Arrogance is a very poor substitute for Competence.
“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.”
A sane and responsible captain would order a full engine stop, throw out the anchor, and would not move again until he has acquired a map of the waterway he’s on!
Why hasn’t something matched the expectations? Well, the universal answer is that the expectations were wrong, isn’t it? Isn’t any other answer simply a denial of observable facts?
I don’t understand Prof Schwartz’s respect towards the IPCC intervals, especially because he wrote a paper with a number that didn’t overlap with the IPCC interval at all.
The IPCC guesses have been pretty much shown incorrect. Isn’t it already a good time to eliminate authorities – and especially completely fake authorities of the IPCC type – from the scientific discourse? For me, it’s extremely hard and annoying to read an article where 1/2 is flooded with this ad hominem nonsense.
As long as SST and LST are not on the table with the raw data, computer codes, mode of corrections, corrections, revisit of the stations, station histories, revisit of stations omitted, …. there is NO basis for any scientific paper dealing with SST or LST. Same for M.Mann and his ilk or any science.
Science dealing with data which are hidden under mattresses is not science but something like astrology. Period. There are too many reason NOT to believe in the data Hansen, Jones & Co delivered.
Just ask for total transparency. Only after this mess is cleared after a couple of years any serious climate science relying on serious data and dealing with SST and LST can start.
Martin Brumby (01:30:13) :
“Worse than we thought”
The reason these AGW clowns are bemused at the refusal of the real world to obey their computerised prophesies is because they forgot to apply The First Law of Bullshit:-
When you are producing a line of Bullshit, NEVER start believing it yourself.
Well Al Gore has followed this advise, buying a seaside property proves he does not believe the sea raise predictions.
Err, I don’t get it here. the UAH anomaly for 2000 was 0.04, and for 2009 it was approximately 0.26, so about 0.2 degress higher.
Now let’s take a look at the graph in the post. It really looks like the Douglas-Spencer-Schwwarz predictions are well below this value. Actually, the closest to observations aare IPCC for which the best estimate seems to fall exactly on +0.2 wrt to 2000.
Could anyone superimpose the UAH anomalies since 2000 with this graph to confirm this? If it is the case, then what is wrong with the ipcc prediction?
Leif Svalgaard (16:45:55) :
I would have expected the 90% IPCC ‘confidence’ bracket to be symmetric around the ‘Best Estimate’ and thus to include the ‘observation-based estimates’, including zero rise.
If the confidence interval is computed by assuming symmetric distributions of the underlying feedback factors, you’ll get something like this. For instance, if you use the simple feedback formula:
delta T = T0/(1-f), and you estimate f to 1/2 with a symmetric confidence interval of (1/4, 3/4), you get that delta T will be 2 with a confidence interval of (4/3, 4) around 2.
Why hasn’t Greenland warmed as much as expected?
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/1aintro.html
AGW didn’t contain anything more than hot air.
While both sagas end in abandoned positions, the Vikings actually enjoyed thier warming while it lasted.
anna v (22:25:33) :
I think the asymmetry reflects the expectation of escalating heating. BTW we often get asymmetric errors in particle physics, for various reasons.
The best estimate is 3 degrees, the lower 90% limit is exactly half of that, 1.5 degrees and the upper 90% limit is exactly twice the ‘best’ or 6 degrees. These numbers look ‘made up’ to me rather than the result of fancy non-linear equations.
Rob Vermeulen (03:36:43) :
“Err, I don’t get it here. the UAH anomaly for 2000 was 0.04, and for 2009 it was approximately 0.26, so about 0.2 degress higher.”
You haven’t got much for quite a while. Why should now be any different? You wouldn’t be cherry picking yet again, would you? Those AGW cherries must be starting to taste a little rotten when your alarmist pals are starting to admit there has been no warming.
Watch out for the new CO2 terrorists
Funny, and it got some flack from the believers, making it twice as fun
Time to get out and start blasting some wildlife
What a second. What about a third possibility. Maybe without the greenhouse gases we would have plunged into a mini ice age due to natural variability. Or a forth possibility, maybe natural variability was leading to warmer temperatures in the first place and the sensitivity is even smaller yet.
That’s part of the reason I’m a skeptic on all this. They have no credible way to know.
This is an excellent observation:
Phillip Bratby (22:50:22) :
The article mentions “heat-trapping gases” 8 times. Can someone explain to me how these pesky CO2 molecules trap heat when they are free to transfer that heat to “non-heat-trapping gases”?
I would add…what is it that an IR photon is supposed to do to a CO2 molecule that mechanical coupling to the rest of the atmosphere won’t also do? I don’t care how many Phds the warmists have, I conclude they are a bunch of knuckleheads when it comes to an intuitive understanding of physical processes.
I couldn’t read all the comments but most of you have displayed such an obvious lack of knowledge on AGW that can be dispelled within 30 seconds of research with credible sources.
For your information; Stephen Shwartz is no AGW denier. This paper is telling you that physically the amount of warming that has occurred is less than the physics of greenhouse gases should lead to. This is not in any real dispute and doesn’t come as any surprise to anyone that has researched AGW to any level of competence.
So, do aerosols have a much larger effect that has been masking the green house effect. Hmmm Dr Shwartz wants to know; Hmmmm, Dr Shwartz poses the question…I mean if 1.4 F is melting the ice caps what would have heppened if the full effect of all those greenhouse gases would have been felt?
and no, adding additional aerosols isn’t the answer, it’s not like returning to depleting the ozone layer and increasing acid rain and the host of human health issues from aerosols is a good solution.
Far from being the comfort that the [snip] would like to believe this paper represents it is actually a ‘holy crap it could be way worse’.
mdjackson (16:22:44) :
[snip]
And the revisionist history will continue.
That’s my prediction.
And if I’m wrong… well, I’ve got nothing to lose.
Turnabout is fair play; If you are wrong you can always go back and revise history. 🙂
KSW (06:47:58) :
I couldn’t read all the comments but most of you have displayed such an obvious lack of knowledge on AGW that can be dispelled within 30 seconds of research with credible sources.
——
Reply:
Really. And would you please provide a list of these so-called “credible sources”, especially in light of the fact that there has been a blatant, successful effort to stifle any opposing views by the 5 major “peer-reviewed” journals when publishing papers on the topic? And also considering that a large number of these “peer-reviewd” papers that did make the cut were actually “pal-reviewed”?
I’d like to see what you recommend.
Because I think for the most part, “climate (cult) science” is in such a state of dysfunctional disrepair, we’d just better start all over again. The resources you’re probably thinking about have lost all credibility.
But hey, I’m just a scientist. What do I know?
List, please.