Sensitive side (from the NASA Global Climate Change Website)
By Rosemary Sullivant,
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
A little extra carbon dioxide in the air may, unfortunately, go further towards warming Earth than previously thought. A team of British and U.S. researchers have uncovered evidence [1] that Earth’s climate may be up to 50 percent more sensitive to long-term increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide than current climate models predict. The reason for the underestimation, they say, may be due to long-term changes in ice sheets and vegetation that are not well represented in today’s global climate models.Just how much will global temperature rise in response to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide? This is one of the key questions that climate scientists need to answer. According to the climate models used in the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels is expected to warm Earth by about 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), once the atmosphere and oceans spend a few years or decades adjusting and reaching a balance.
But according to a recent study by a team of researchers that includes Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Earth’s climate is also influenced by other, much slower processes. These include changes in ice sheets, vegetation and aerosols, for example, that take place over hundreds and thousands of years.
Because of their complexity and long timescales, these processes are almost impossible to integrate into today’s climate computer models. As a result, it has been difficult to know just what their effect on Earth’s climate sensitivity would be.
To learn more about this sensitivity, Schmidt and his co-authors looked back 3 million years into Earth’s past. They used a computer model that describes the oceans and atmosphere to predict, retroactively, the climate of the mid-Pliocene — a period when both global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were higher than today. The model substantially underestimated just how high temperatures would go. When the researchers adapted the model to include the effects of long-term climate changes in vegetation and ice sheets, they were able to get a much closer representation of the warming in the Pliocene era.
The team found that it took much lower concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide to recreate the Pliocene’s warm climate than current models — which consider only the relatively fast-adjusting components of the climate — predict. Pliocene carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been around 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), while according to current simulations it would take 500 to 600 ppmv of carbon dioxide to bring about the warm temperatures of the Pliocene. As a result, the researchers estimate that Earth’s response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 30 to 50 percent greater than previously calculated. In other words, the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought.
This higher sensitivity of the climate should be taken into account, the team concludes, when targets are set for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The results of the study appear in Nature Geoscience.
Research paper: [1] Daniel J. Lunt et al., “Earth System Sensitivity Inferred from Pliocene Modelling and Data,” Nature Geoscience, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2010).
PDF Here
“…the researchers estimate that Earth’s response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 30 to 50 percent greater than previously calculated. In other words, the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought.”
With a one-third increase in CO2 over the past century and a half, where is the several degrees of warming that should have occurred according to the AGW hypothesis?
We now have the computer modeled answer: the warming has been delayed for a few thousand years. That certainly doesn’t make the planet appear to be very sensitive to CO2.
I almost lost the ability to be sarcastic when commenting on the “wetness” thread… but I recovered. I thought the science couldn’t get any sillier than that one, but I noted how many times in the past I had drawn that conclusion only to be wrong yet again… like now. I wonder how Gavin would explain this to his bank?
Banker: We are very concerned about your financial situation. You haven’t been putting in as much money into your account as you are taking out. If this continues you will run out of money in six months and your checks will start to bounce.
Gavin: No they won’t, you’ve not modeled my bank account properly.
Banker: Uhm… well, we are accountants and we have computers that track it all….
Gavin: Yes, but actual measurements of my account balance are meaningless. Look at this computer model of my bank account over the last 50 years. See, if we run it backwards, it shows that I had a lot less money in my account 50 years ago than I actually had.
Banker (confused): Which would mean that the model isn’t accurate…?
Gavin: No! You don’t understand modeling. What that means is that the impact of my deposits on my account balance was bigger than we thought.
Banker (really confused): Well your account balance is a combination of deposits and –
Gavin: EXACTLY! DEPOSITS! So, since it is clear that my deposits had a bigger impact to balance than we thought, we can adjust the model and run the model forward again and show that current deposits will result in a much higher account balance than what you thought. I’m rich!
Banker (slightly amused): Well that would work if you just ignored the withdrawls.
Gavin (perplexed): Withdrawls? I don’t have those in my model. What is a withdrawl?
Banker: Taking money out. You know, like a deposit only negative.
Gavin: I don’t understand this negative concept…
Banker: Itz about cycles Gavin. You have a regular payment cycle into your account from your employer, those are deposits. Then you have regular bills like your mortgage, power and phone bills, those are withdrawls. Right now your positive payment cycles are smaller than your negative withdrawl cycles.
Gavin: No sir, it is YOU who doesn’t understand. You are basing your conclusions on your measurements, which have nothing to do with the model, which clearly shows that my account will reach a tipping point and explode to infinity balance due to the increasing effects of deposits. This negative cycle of withdrawls you babble about has nothing to do with actual account balance.
Banker (sigh): Well, your model is meaningless, your checks will start to bounce, don’t say I didn’t warn you. What the heck do you do for a living anyway?
Gavin: Why I model the climate of course. Same sound mathematical principles.
Banker: Wow. Same principles huh?
Gavin: Yup. Planet will ignite and burn up in a few years, we just proved it by showing that our models totaly under predicted the temperatures of the past, so we adjusted them and rolled the forward and itz worse than we thought. Spontaneous planetary combustion is imminent.
Banke: OK. Got it. Let me explain “foreclosure” to you.
“…than current climate models predict”
Here we go again, garbage in, garbage out. But this is all settled, just read the NASA Climate Kids website:
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/
Under Big Questions [what Q’s? This is stated as FACT]
“# Earth has been getting warmer fast, causing lots of serious problems
# Humans are causing this warming ”
How appropriate that one button is labeled “Climate Tales”!
Ahh, our tax dollars at work.
“Rhoda R says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I love the smell of desperation in the morning.”
Love that! 🙂
Their conclusion, which is should likely be the most carefully worded sentence in the whole paper deserves closer scrutiny:
“We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.”
Meaning, correct me if I’m wrong:
1) (Earlier computer models say that) “Human interference with the climate system” (CO2 forcing vs. climate sensitivity) is “dangerous”.
2) Earlier computer models are wrong (CO2 forcing in not enough). Even so, our newly perfected computer model says the “sensitivity of the Earth system” (to not enough CO2 forcing) is much higher than the original models predicted. (can’t change the CO2 forcing so we are changing the sensitivity!)
3) Therefore, (and in comparison with the earlier models) “human interference with the climate system” is now even more dangerous, and already planned and accepted “targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations” are not enough (we need a louder alarm bell).
Great insights into their mindsets. Petitio Principii comes to mind…..
Best,
Jose
As if we needed more evidence that these computer models don’t work! My model, however, does work and predicts an ice age by 2100, but I need more money for further research and a much bigger, faster computer to increase my confidence levels from 90% to 95%. Please send your donations (US$ only please) to my e-mail address attached. Thanks!
An interesting piece by a well known hardcore leftist dismissing the whole scaremongering climate change industry and its computer models.
Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models
By Alexandere Cockburn
“Contrast the demonstrated impossibility of computer modeling the simple downwind
dispersion of a plume from a single smokestack or volcano with the mind boggling
scientific hubris of trying to model the climate of the entire globe.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04302010.html
This is just another pathetic attempt to rewrite history to match an imaginary reality.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2582sg6.jpg
Ignore Gavin’s warnings at your risk. Would you rather the S.F and NYC be drowned or make the responsible decisions to reduce CO2 emissions today? Your choice.
How did the Earth survive earlier, longer increases in CO2?
This report by Schmidt is simply the latest in the well established tradition of AGW promoters coming out with a new report every few months claiming to prove that things are even worse than predicted.
The absence of things ever actually getting worse than predicted seems to inspire the promoters be even more dire in their doom saying. The true believers seem to lap it up like cream for kittens.
This is fascinating to watch.
“When the researchers adapted the model to include the effects of long-term climate changes in vegetation and ice sheets, they were able to get a much closer representation of the warming in the Pliocene era.”
—
I love the use of the word “adapted.” What parameterization works best, more like it.
@ur momisugly Bob (Sceptical Redcoat)
If I were you, I would only be accepting gold and silver at this point.
Smokey says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:28 am
(…)
With a one-third increase in CO2 over the past century and a half, where is the several degrees of warming that should have occurred according to the AGW hypothesis?
————–
Reply: Sorry, Smokey… you have to wait 800 years. (They just don’t tell you that ’cause it would really delay their funding.)
CO2. Is there anything it can’t do?
I cannot even be bothered to comment on Gavin Smith’s ludicrous modelling frenzy. Tweaking unknowns to get a fit to a pre-conceived conclusion is utter insanity.
Even the guy who found the ozone hole is speaking out about modelling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8664000/8664313.stm
ROBJM says:
Well, we have a fairly strong indication. Hansen’s original model, on which all the current ones are based, was designed for his studies of Venus in the ’60s and ’70s. Venus has an atmosphere 98% CO2 and a surface temp around 400 C. This clearly affected Hansen’s mind, finally depriving him of all rationality.
It would appear the same is happening to Gavin as he looks at earlier eras, but perhaps more gradually…
If the ingredients consist of computers, government funding, and Gavin Schmidt, you’re just as likely to get useful data about Mass Effect 2 as CO2.
It is truly appalling that climate “science” has come to this. Even more so that man’s future, if the Warmenistas have their way will be based on such total nonsense.
Gavin and his ilk will have much to explain about their behavior in the future. History, and possibly the courts may take a dim view indeed.
http://budget.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/budget/11374/100_budget-video_060519.asx
Markey’s U.S. Senate Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing & testimony is taking place now. Just as I thought…
“the demonstrated impossibility of computer modeling the simple downwind dispersion of a plume..”
Exactly. And the key word there is ‘demonstrated’. In other words, the one thing we know for certain about such models is that they hardly work, even over very short timescales
As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far we haven’t had any.
Mackey lined up Gov. “scientists” who have lined up unanimously, including Lisa Graumlich, director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, and member of the “Oxburgh Inquiry” panel, to belittle Monckton’s testimony. Monckton is good, but why not other more directly recognized non-CAGWers?
What a joke. Such a pile of crap. Stooges on parade!
This is getting monotonous to ridiculous proportions. Yes Gavin, thanks for the latest “it’s worse than we thought” meme. Of course, if the finding was correct, then instead of seeing no significant change in the last decade, wouldn’t we’ve found an increase in the rate of warming? Dang, you still have that troublesome reality to deal with.
What I fail to understand, is when Gavin and the people like him go back and say “wait, we wrong, its worse than we thought!!”, so often, why do people lend them any credence? After admitting they were wrong, say 3 times, wouldn’t we, shouldn’t we determine that they don’t have a clue as to what they’re doing and the veracity of their findings should be highly suspect.
Gavin, you can go back billions of years if you like, it won’t change the fact that you don’t know what drives our climate. I bet you can change your precious computer model to factor CO2 to fit perfectly in the mid-Pliocene period, and then run the models against today and they still won’t work. Of course, then you can do another study and state surprisingly, “it’s worse than we thought!!!”.
Turns out, CO2 isn’t the major player in climate forcing regardless of what our anti-industrialist believe. You alarmist pinheads have had over 30 years to create a computer model that accurately models our climate with given variables. You haven’t been able to. Quit. Your failures are an embarrassment to the human race.
Think about this for a minute, 2.5-3 million years ago people said that the panama land brige was not there or forming.But what is the real ? is was the continents in thier positions they are in now or were they in different positions, my guess would be they were not, so modeling todays world compared to millions of years ago is comparing apples to oranges, oops, watermelons ethier way its crap!!!!
So, it’s worse than we thought, but we’re going to have to trust you on it for an indefinite period – possibly centuries – right. I guess this is what Tacitus meant by “no refuge but in audacity.”
OT, the Icelandic volcano seemingly got a new supply of more viscous lava and is now churning out a fair bit of SO2: cloud is about 200 DU thick, heading out into the Atlantic then probably back toward the Pole. Yesterday ~13:00UTC yesterday until ~15:00 today: http://i41.tinypic.com/23tihec.gif
Good picture of old fashioned Stephenson screen thermometers here:-
http://apaulinstruments.in/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/meteorological_thermometers.226160027.jpg
Thermometers with major divisions of 5Celsius every 10mm I would say, so minor divisions of 0.5Celsius every 1mm, maybe not even that. Difficult to see how you could use such a thermometer for measuring temperatures accurate to 0.1Celsius for the last 100 years isn’t it? Good enough for “weather” but surely not good enough for “climate”? Still, if you have 365 measurements of temperature for a year you can add them all together and divide them by 365 to get the average. That will give you plenty of decimal points to play with. Not mathematically sound to quote an average temperature to an accuracy half an order of magnitude greater than the original observations, but clearly these flights of pure fantasy don’t need to worry too much about being mathematically sound. I expect they have a model to work out the real temperature from a hundred years of inaccurate weather stations readings.
Yup. Chapter 39 of “It’s Worse Than We Thought.”
(rough estimation.)