By Dr. Pat Michaels at World Climate Report
A new, lower estimate of climate sensitivity
There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C. This is a sizeable contraction and reduction from the estimates of the climate sensitivity given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in which the likely range is given as 2.0°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate of 3.0°C.
Further, the results from the new analysis largely eliminate the “fat tail” of the distribution of possible values of the climate sensitivity (that the IPCC AR4 report was fond of) which included the possibility that very large climate sensitivities are a realistic possibility. In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.”
Contrast that with the IPCC assessment of the literature (summarized in our Figure 1) which routinely includes studies concluding there is a greater than a 10% possibility that the true climate sensitivity exceeds 6°C and some which find that there is a greater than 5% possibility that it exceeds 10°C.
Figure 1. Climate sensitivity distributions retained (and in some cases recast) by the IPCC from their assessment of the literature. Note the “fat tail” towards the right which indicates the possibilities of the climate sensitivity having a very large positive value (that is, a huge degree of global temperature rise for a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) (source: IPCC AR4).
The new paper, from a team of researchers led by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University, throws cold water on the IPCC’s tails. Here is its rather provocative abstract:
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2–4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and non-zero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the range of the earth’s probable climate sensitivity as determined by Schmittner et al. Note the rapid drop-off in the probability that the climate sensitivity is much greater than 3°C (the IPCC “best estimate” for the sensitivity), and that the distribution falls off less slowly towards the left (towards lower sensitivity) than towards the right (higher sensitivities). The “fat right-hand tail” of the distribution is gone and the possibility that the climate sensitivity is in the 1°C to 2°C range is not minimal.
Figure 2. Distribution of the land/ocean climate sensitivity as determined by Schmittner et al. (adapted from Schmittner et al., 2011).
The Schmittner et al. results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which, by employing investigations of the earth’s paleoclimate behavior (that is, how the earth’s temperature changes in the past when subject to changing climate forcings) have come to somewhat similar conclusions, especially regarding the (lack of) evidence to support the existence of the fat right-hand tail.
For example, researchers James Annan and Julia Hargreaves published a paper in 2009 that concluded many of the assumptions underlying the possibilities of very high climate sensitivities were unjustified. They wrote:
When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much greater confidence in a moderate value for [the climate sensitivity] is easily justified, with an upper 95% probability limit for [the sensitivity] easily shown to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C. These results also impact strongly on projected economic losses due to climate change.
Annan made repeated comments during the IPCC AR4 review process that the IPCC’s handling of climate sensitivity and its probability distributions were incorrect. His complaints largely fell upon deaf ears.
However, as there are appearing more and more examples in the literature, of which Schmittner et al. is one of them, making a convincing case that the very high climate sensitivities are not defendable, there will be growing pressure on the IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report to greatly shrink the fat tail of the probability distribution for the true climate sensitivity. However, the climate “realists” very bad experience with the last IPCC process makes them chary. James Annan, writing at his blog in reference to the new Schmittner et al. paper had this to say as to what may result from it:
That said, [the Schmittner et al. paper] is a useful antidote to the exaggerated uncertainty estimates that have been prevalent over recent years, and I certainly applaud the intentions and effort underlying this substantial piece of work. In any case, I expect the merchants of doubt to do their worst on it when they cite it in the IPCC report.
But, as the evidence mounts against a high value for the climate sensitivity, and evidence grows for a low value (recall that the observed rate of global warming for the past several decades has fallen well below IPCC best estimates), the IPCC is going to be hard-pressed to retain the status quo in its Fifth Assessment Report, especially in light of the enhanced scrutiny that its AR4 misdeeds brought upon the process.
But, as James alludes to, perhaps we ought not be holding our breath.
And, for those keeping score out there, about 10 years ago, a couple of us here at WCR were part of a team which published a paper in the journal Climate Research in which we employed a variety of techniques to derive empirical estimates of the amount of temperature rise that we could expect by the end of this century—a rise that could pretty well be considered to be in-line with the climate sensitivity. We concluded that the expected temperature rise between 1990 and 2100 would be in the range 1.0°C to 3.0°C with our best guess being 1.8°C (in contrast to the IPCC estimates, which, at the time, were for a rise of between 1.4°C and 5.8°C).
References:
Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2009. On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climate Change, 104, 423-436, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9715-y, http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf
Michaels, P.J., P.C. Knappenberger, O.W. Frauenfeld, and R.E. Davis, 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.
Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, in press*, http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf
*According to the authors
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I disagree with even the 2.3C sensitivity number. Long-term, stable systems generally must have negative feedbacks or they would not be stable. Thus I believe the net feedbacks are negative which means the real sensitivity factor is likely to be less than 1C. The lull or possibly even slight decrease in temperatures over the past 10+ yrs is consistent with this expectation. Natural effects are clearly overpowering any enhanced warming effects due to CO2 at the moment so CO2 cannot be the major driver.
I think alot of the issues surrounding climate sensitivty and positive/negative feedback relate to time-ie fast versus slow feedbacks.
High climate sensitivity estimates need to add another value to the graphs-time. I.e. if it takes 1,000 years for full positive feedacks to kick in, isnt this relevant to the estimates, and to humans in general? This is where alot of the confusion arises I suspect, eg it takes hundreds of years to melt ice, any such feedback on climate sensitivity needs to be factored in, in terms of hundreds of years. I dont see this in their graphs.
Monckton noted the decline in ‘official’ estimates of climate sensitivity back in 2009; see page 5:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdf
apologies if i have missed this, but is this new assessment based on empirical observations or models. If models, do we not have the sam criticism of the models that suggest high CS? What empirical based data do we have to show low (or high) CS?
TIA
“MangoChutney says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm”
I second this request for empirical based data. My understanding is free floating so called “greenhouse gas” molecules in the atmosphere are nothing more or less than photon pumps. Because of the gravity induced adiabatic lapse rate more photons are pumped upwards than downwards. The second LAW of Thermodynamics accounts for the downwards photons.
So, this latest ‘estimate’ (model derived) is based on poor data retrieved from poorly sited weather stations and they still get 66% possibility.
If this was the chance given to me for a new operation to ‘cure’ a disease I would stick with the disease.
Meh. More models. The best thing about this result is that its an attack on the confirmation bias that has cemented in this fantasy of 3C per doubling.
Does anyone really think that even if the IPCC reduce the figures on the warming ability of CO2 that it will change anything. There’s money to be made and in climate science that is the ‘settled’ part.
CO2 and any other atmospheric molecule cannot and does not INCREASE the temperature above the maximum temperature achieved by short wave radiation being constantly absorbed by the earth. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it. However changes in the protective layer of ozone in the stratosphere could be more important than is currently believed.
Sorry for being a bit negative about the lower CO2 figure but we’ve just got a Carbon Tax and I know that anything the IPCC says won’t even be considered by our incompetent Government.
Joel Shore says:
November 9, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“you are talking nonsense here”
Joel, you have called my claim about the effect of LWIR backscattered onto liquid water nonsense, then proceeded to counter with well known information about the emission spectrum of water, effectively a strawman argument. The issue is not whether the IR emission spectrum for liquid water is close to a black body, but whether backscattered LWIR can affect the cooling rate of liquid water that is also free to evaporatively cool, compared to a solid black body, which at the Earth’s surface can only cool through radiation and conduction.
My claim that the effect of backscattered LWIR over water is less that that over land is based on empirical evidence. I have conducted the experiment myself and found that liquid that is free to evaporatively cool responds very differently to incident LWIR than water that can only cool through radiation and conduction. If you want to call my claim “nonsense” then I would ask you to provide a link to an empirical evidence that LWIR has an equal effect over water as it does over land. No hand waving, no calls to authority, no computer models and no black board scribbling. Empirical evidence from controlled lab experiment only. Link or put a sock in it.
Baa Humbug says:
November 9, 2011 at 3:13 pm
When climate scientists finally reach a unanimous decision that climate sensitivity is zero, we will have reached the truth.
Sometimes I think people forget we live in a medium of gas. Remember that stuff; gas? Expose it to the tiniest bit of heat and it lifts and separates.
Trying to heat gas in an open area is like trying to herd cats. And claiming that gas in an open area can “trap” heat? well……I suppose mankind has made sillier claims in the past. Falling off the edge of a flat Earth comes to mind.
AGWScience Fiction scientists haven’t forgotten it, they have excluded it. Y’all arguing with them have to understand that they have created a different physics, giving properties of one thing to another, taking laws out of context, and reducing all their science fiction premises to one dimensional properties and processes clamped to these fictional premises/memes.
AGW is not based on our fluid gaseous atmosphere, the only real gas they allow is water vapour, the rest, all the oxygen and nitrogen and carbon dioxide are designated ideal gases. For those who don’t know the difference real gases are the real gases we have around us, they have volume, weight, interactions of attraction, etc., ideal gases are purely imaginary, have no weight, no volume, are hard dots of nothing travelling at vast speeds through empty volumeless space where they are thoroughly mixed by the countless collisions in this empty space (useful for preliminary calculations when volume etc. are added back in, they do not describe real gases, no real gas obeys ideal gas law.)
An atmosphere without volume and weight (gravity) is not real, their atmosphere of empty space of ideal gases is describing a non-existent world of pure fiction, because their premises about the properties and processes are pure fiction. Their conclusions therefore are not based on real world physics, but on their fictional version – so, for example, carbon dioxide as ideal gas in AGW world has no volume and no weight relative to the other gases as in our atmosphere, as an ideal gas it diffuses through empty space bouncing off and never interacting with the other ideal gases, thus without weight it can stay up in the empty atmosphere accumulating into a blanket for hundreds and even thousands of years being bounced around in elastic collisions by the other ideal volumeless weightless gases and so remaining thoroughly mixed.
What there has been a distinct failure to appreciate in all these arguments is that their basic AGW premises are from a distinctly different own version of physics, their own science fiction world.
And moreover, have no internal consistency or logic when related back to real world physics. The problem is exacerbated because these science fiction memes have been so successfully introduced into the education system in the last decades that they are now unthinkingly and ubiquitously held to be ‘real’ physics. They describe a nonsense world.
Ideal gases don’t rise when heated because they’re not subject to variations in temperature .., for the same reason they don’t sink if heavier or rise if lighter than than the the fluid gas atmosphere of real gases, as does carbon dioxide displacing air and always sinking and methane lighter than air and always rising, unless work is done etc. Ideal gases in the AGWScience Fiction world are too busy travelling at vast speeds thoroughly diffusing in an ATMOSPHERE of EMPTY SPACE to be bothered by such things as having real properties.
Most arguing against AGW, anti and lukewarmers alike, thinking AGWScientists ‘haven’t included this or that’, haven’t examined their actual AGW core beliefs about properties and processes. You’re, generic, arguing at cross purposes because you don’t understand that AGW basic premises about the world are physically different, and they think you’re nuts bringing in convection and the rest..
=====================================
Richard111 says:
November 10, 2011 at 12:09 am
“MangoChutney says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm”
I second this request for empirical based data. My understanding is free floating so called “greenhouse gas” molecules in the atmosphere are nothing more or less than photon pumps. Because of the gravity induced adiabatic lapse rate more photons are pumped upwards than downwards. The second LAW of Thermodynamics accounts for the downwards photons.
AGWSF doesn’t have empirical based data for any of their basic claims of properties and processes. You’re not dealing with real scientists who have forgotten to include something, you’re dealing with science fiction scientists who have certain body of beliefs about properties and processes. It is a distinct body of beliefs, a distinctly different belief system. It is a science fiction world, you err in taking any of it seriously.
steven mosher says:
November 9, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“The 20th century record can only get you the TCR. paleo gets you the ECR.”
Steven, I am curious about the paleoclimate picture being talked about by the AGW crowd. Could you post a link that details this argument? Or is it only that temperature is correlated with CO2? If so don’t bother as I’m well aware of the Antoine equation.
Steve Mosher,
“The 20th century record can only get you the TCR. paleo gets you the ECR. so you have it backwards. the equillibrium climate response ( sensitivity) takes centuries to develop. 150 years of temperature data can only get you the transient response, not the steady state response.”
I quite agree. To get 2.3 degrees K in the warming direction might not even be possible with the ice sheets at such high latitudes, and if possible might take one or more thousand years, i.e., not particularly relevent to the next 100 years of fossil fuels.
I have several issues with the quality of the “science” in the paper. The reference for the variants of the University of Victoria model used dates to 2001. The paper includes no discussion of that model’s diagnostic results, leaving no reason to believe that it is not subject to the same correlated errors associated with the more recent and presumably better AR4 models, both those known at the time of the AR4 and those reported in the years since. Apparently model results can support conclusions about the climate without review of the diagnostic results of how well they compare to the observations, and reporting of the corresponding increase in error and uncertainty of the results. Perhaps the key abuse of “science” in the climate literature is the failure to consider model diagnostic issues in the reporting of model results.
Since most of the differences in forcing in the last LGM are not due to CO2, any sensitivity result related CO2 doubling is purely mathematical. The assumption that the sensitivity would be the same for CO2 forcing that is coupled differently spatially and chemically to the atmosphere, land surface and oceans is unjustified in a nonlinear system.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm
OT
For some may be small, but for my graphs a major milestone….
________________________
Congratulations.
Dave Springer says:
November 9, 2011 at 1:51 pm
@Anthony
This is a perfect example of what lowers your google ranking…..
_________________________________________
This is getting a bit old.
Anthony has already told us he would be busy writing his paper and would not have the time to devote to WUWT just now. I find your repeated needling him after he has explained that rather infantile.
Call for guest authors – I’m stepping away from WUWT for awhile
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/call-for-guest-authors-im-stepping-away-from-wuwt-for-awhile/
I am surprised that he has managed to do as much as he has to keep this blog running.
(Go back to work on your paper Anthony)
Gail Combs and Jorgekafkazar
Thanks.
Well it is most comforting to learn from Schmittner et al, that there is no possibility that the climate sensitivity could be less than 1.0 deg C, nor more than 3.3 deg C.
But it is even more illuminating to see that the well known logarithmic relationship between the mean global surface Temperature , and the atmospheric CO2 abundance has a slope (of the T versus log CO2 linear graph) that probably has one of five likely values, with lower probabilities for values (of the slope) intermediate between those five “resonances”.
Yes I think we can now all be more confident, that the relationship truly does follow :
T2-T1 = m. log ((CO2,2)/(CO2,1)) where the notation has its obvious interpretation, with m having the five frequency resonance function. Yes the bigger the tera-computers, the more bizarre the models are.
Well I still believe that the SUN (energy source) is the FORCING for the climate system and that any FEEDBACK LOOP should connect the output (mean global surface Temperature) back to controlling THE SOLAR FORCING INPUT.
And in any case ; IT’S THE WATER !!
“”””” Wayne Delbeke says:
November 9, 2011 at 7:52 pm
John Eggert says:
November 9, 2011 at 4:29 pm
==============================================
See below – temperature has little to do with evaporation but relative humidity does. “”””””
Well that is a somewhat foggy statement (by John). Certainly the Temperature of my house doesn’t have anything to do with evaporation from say the ocean. Maybe one should state specifically WHICH Temperature “has little to do with evaporation”.
It seems to me that the Temperature OF THE ATMOSPHERE has nothing to do with evaporation from the ocean; but it is equally true that the RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF THE ATMOSPHERE also has nothing whatsoever to do with evaporation; which is driven primarily by THE TEMPERATURE OF THE OCEAN SURFACE.
What do you mean that the relative humidity of the atmosphere has no effect on EVAPORATION ?
Well it doesn’t; the relative humidity of the atmosphere affects the RATE OF CONDENSATION from the atmosphere; NOT the rate of EVAPORATION from the ocean.
The NET LOSS of H2O molecules (locally) from the ocean depends on the difference between the RATE OF EVAPORATION which depends on the LIQUID TEMPERATURE ; and the RATE OF CONDENSATION which depends on the RELATIVE HUMIDITY of the ATMOSPHERE. The NET LOSS also depends on local winds which can remove the newly evaporated H2O molecules from the interface, thereby preventing their condensation back in the same place.
As the climate sensitivity (aka equilibrium climate sensitivity) is not an observable, claims regarding its magnitude are scientifically meaningless.
Joel Shore says:
November 9, 2011 at 4:39 pm and later…
Joel,
No-one has any idea what the ECS is likely to be. All your arguments stem from an inherent belief in the veracity of models. All my arguments stem from a preference to use observed data. All the IPCC estimates you quote rely on model assumptions. Any estimate of ECS is an even wilder guess than any estimate of TCS. As I clearly stated, the ‘on track’ CS (TCS if you like) is only around 2.3 K if one assumes that ALL the observed warming is due to CO2. That assumption by itself further assumes that CO2 is even capable of having a significant effect on global temperature. Any extension of TCS into some vague an totally unproven notion of ECS is pure speculation.
.
As to variability – of course it works both ways. That is why the global temperature graph since 1850 shows periods of warming and non-warming and cooling. The trouble is the pro-cAGW crowd will only accept that CO2 causes warming and ‘natural variability’ causes cooling. The warming period of 1910 to 1945 is considered to be before the ‘period of anthropogenic effect’ often quoted by pro-cAGW posters. Therefore, they assume it is due to ‘natural variability’. They ignore the fact that it is of similar magnitude to the warming of 1975-1998 which they confidently state is due to CO2. The illogicality of that argument is astounding..
.
At some point, the pro-cAGW commenters will have to recognise that the observed data DOES NOT support the models produced by the IPCC. Time will tell. If the global temperature starts to increase in an accelerative fashion, the theory of ‘increased CO2 = cAGW’ may be correct. As it stands today, that is not the case. The overall trend since 1850 is a warming of appx 0.06 K per decade and it is currently decreasing! Shorter term trends are irrelevant.
Konrad and Joel Shore,
you’re both right and wrong.
Konrad, you’re right in stating that the ocean, if subjected to an increased heat flux from above will cool by evaporation, whereas the land surface (you mention a solid body) will not. The land surface is not entirely void of water and therefore may also evaporatively cool, but this cooling is strongly limited by water availability as demonstrated first (I think) by Manabe et al. (1992, J. Climate). This is the reason why land surfaces warm or cool more than the ocean when global climate changes.
Konrad, you’re wrong in stating that climate models do not take this effect into account. Both the more simple model of Schmittner and the more complex models of Manabe take into account evaporative cooling of the surface. For this reason climate models predict larger temperature changes over land than over the oceans, which is consistent with paleoclimate reconstructions and with the recent observed temperature changes.
Joel Shore, you’re right about some of the weaknesses of the paper such as the fact that non-linearities in cloud feedbacks are not considered in the uncertainty. I also agree with you that the exclusion of very high climate sensitivities has a positive meaning, that is that we still have time to figure things out and turn things around. A climate sensitivity of 10 K would mean that we’re doomed already, no matter what we do.
Joel Shore, you’re wrong in saying that Konrad was taking nonsense. Well, his calculation was nonsense but he had a point in evaporative cooling being different for ocean and land.
We seem to have forgotten that climate models operate on energy flux in W/m^2 and not in actual energy units. Since temperature changes require changes in energy and not just energy flux climate models are completely incapable of demonstrating temperature change directly and use a “climate sensitivity ” factor to convert the so called “climate forcing” output by climate models as W/m^2 into global temperature changes in the form of degrees C.
There is no stated value for this climate sensitivity factor and what is claimed as climate sensitivity uses values for this factor that are “all over the map” ranging from well under 0.1°C/W/m^2 to the 0.75°C W/m^2 used to predict 2.78°C of warming from a doubling of CO2 according to
5.35ln(2)=3.71 X 0.75 = 2.78°C (Hansen et al 1981 model #4 output was 2.78°C for a doubling from 300ppmv to 600ppmv CO2).
This climate sensitivity factor is key to the entire climate change issue because its foundation is the same as that of the CO2 forcing parameter of the climate models stemming from the 0.6°C of warming since preindustrial times being ralated to the 100ppmv increase in concurrent atmospheric CO2 concentration increase.
The IPCC 1990 FAR shows the Little Ice Age and the world recovering from this at a rate of about 0.5°C/century which is an identical period of time over which the observed 0.6°C of warming occured with the 100ppmv increase in CO2 concentration.
This leaves 0.6°C minus 0.5°C = 0.1°C possibly attributable to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The climate models produce 5.35ln(380/280) = 1.634W/m^2 of forcing over this period during which 0.1°C can be attributed to the 100ppmv increase in CO2 (from 280ppmv to 380ppmv).
The climate sensitivity therefore is 0.1°C/1.634W/m^2 = 0.0612°C for each watt per square metre.
The IPCC 2007 4AR shows most of the climate model projections of forcing from a doubling of CO2 falling in this same 3.71W/m^2 range so based on a derivation for climate sensitivity using the same criteria as was used for the CO2 forcing parameter of the IPCC climate models the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 would therefore be 3.71W/m^2 X 0.0612°C/W/m^2 = 0.227°C!
This is vastly different from the 1.2°C to 3.0°C projected as climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 since preindusrtial times.
The 1.2°C value is rather interesting in that it is not that far off from six times the 0.227°C value calculated from the 0.1°C temperature value resulting from subtracting the 0.5°C of natural warming since the Little Ice age from the 0.6°C of observed temperature increase.
One has to wonder if the purpose of the MBH98 temperature proxy was to eliminate the Little Ice Age removing the natural 0.5°C/century warming to allow the entire observed 0.6°C to be attributable to industrialization sourced CO2 emissions to prevent this insignificant actual climate sensitivity from being discovered.
Does anyone have a working link to the Schmittner, A., et al., 2011 (draft/final) paper?
Or their own PDF copy of the Schmittner, A., et al., 2011 (draft/final) paper?
AFAIK, there are currently no working links to the Schmittner, A., et al., 2011 (draft/final) paper;
Google search term “Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum” filetype:pdf
Returns four links, the two that are broken are to the paper and SOM materials.
Remove the filetype:pdf gets you more hits, but still no PDF of this paper.
This link is also broken (the one posted in the above blog post);
http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf
Google Scholar search term;
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Climate+sensitivity+estimated+from+temperature+reconstructions+of+the+Last+Glacial+Maximum&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2011&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bio&as_subj=phy&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=25&btnG=Search+Scholar&hl=en
Not there either.
REPLY: Science made them take it off the web, I have a story in the works about this. – Anthony
REPLY: Science made them take it off the web, I have a story in the works about this. – Anthony
I sort of assumed something was up with this.
I would then think that what was once available was a draft copy and not a final Science copy (otherwise we’d find a link to it at Science (or at Science in press)).
So was this draft paper a post peer reviewed (as in completed by Science peer reviewers) copy, as in going to the camera ready Science publication version of this paper?
Gottlieb Daimer says:
November 10, 2011 at 10:51 pm
“For this reason climate models predict larger temperature changes over land than over the oceans, which is consistent with paleoclimate reconstructions and with the recent observed temperature changes.”
You claim that the difference in effect of LWIR over water and over land has been taken into account by some climate modellers. If this was the widely accepted view, why is Kevin Tremberth still looking for missing heat in the oceans?
I claim that backscattered LWIR around the 15 micron band has less than 30% of the effect over the oceans than it does over land. I would welcome you pointing me to the workings of Schmittner or Manabe where they accept the reduced effect of backscattered LWIR over 71% of the Earth’s surface.
Remember, pointing out that evaporative cooling has been taken into account is a similar strawman argument to that of Joel pointing out that the emissivity of the oceans is close to that of a black body. The issue I am raising is that the ability of incident LWIR to slow the cooling of the Earth’s surface is very different over the oceans than over the land. I do not mind being told that I am wrong, but please address the actual issue I was raising.
Gottlieb Daimer says:
Gottlieb, well I think you are being rather generous to Konrad in reworking what he said into something that makes sense. I don’t disagree with anything that you said, but I think it is a far cry from what he was saying. Even after he clarified what he meant in talking about blackbodies, he was still basically supporting a notion about the effect of downwelling longwave radiation not being able to heat the oceans that even people like Willis Eschenbach argue to be nonsense ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-the-ocean/ ).
And, while I may not always agree with Willis, when he says that some argument that AGW skeptics use is nonsense, he is invariably right.