New study in Science shows climate sensitivity overestimated

From Oregon State University  some news the team and especially Kevin Trenberth just really don’t want to hear. I covered this on a tip from Dr. Pat Michaels back on Nov 9th titled: Climate sensitivity- lowering the IPCC “fat tail” and now the official press release makes the publication well known. Their estimate is 2.4C for a doubling of CO2, which is still higher than Spencer and others have estimated but significantly lower than IPCC’s projections. A link to the paper follows below.

Figure 3A. Marginal posterior probability distributions for a doubling of CO2, estimated from land 265 and ocean, land only, and ocean only temperature reconstructions using the standard assumptions 266 (1 × dust, 0 × wind stress, 1 × sea level correction of ΔSSTSL = 0.32 K, see SOM).

Climate sensitivity to CO2 more limited than extreme projections

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies – and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

Authors of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation and published online this week in the journal Science, say that global warming is real and that increases in atmospheric CO2 will have multiple serious impacts.

However, the most Draconian projections of temperature increases from the doubling of CO2 are unlikely.

“Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale,” said Andreas Schmittner, an Oregon State University researcher and lead author on the Science article. “When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago – which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum – and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

“If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought,” Schmittner added.

Scientists have struggled for years trying to quantify “climate sensitivity” – which is how the Earth will respond to projected increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The 2007 IPCC report estimated that the air near the surface of the Earth would warm on average by 2 to 4.5 degrees (Celsius) with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial standards. The mean, or “expected value” increase in the IPCC estimates was 3.0 degrees; most climate model studies use the doubling of CO2 as a basic index.

Some previous studies have claimed the impacts could be much more severe – as much as 10 degrees or higher with a doubling of CO2 – although these projections come with an acknowledged low probability. Studies based on data going back only to 1850 are affected by large uncertainties in the effects of dust and other small particles in the air that reflect sunlight and can influence clouds, known as “aerosol forcing,” or by the absorption of heat by the oceans, the researchers say.

To lower the degree of uncertainty, Schmittner and his colleagues used a climate model with more data and found that there are constraints that preclude very high levels of climate sensitivity.

The researchers compiled land and ocean surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum and created a global map of those temperatures. During this time, atmospheric CO2 was about a third less than before the Industrial Revolution, and levels of methane and nitrous oxide were much lower. Because much of the northern latitudes were covered in ice and snow, sea levels were lower, the climate was drier (less precipitation), and there was more dust in the air.

All these factor, which contributed to cooling the Earth’s surface, were included in their climate model simulations.

The new data changed the assessment of climate models in many ways, said Schmittner, an associate professor in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. The researchers’ reconstruction of temperatures has greater spatial coverage and showed less cooling during the Ice Age than most previous studies.

High sensitivity climate models – more than 6 degrees – suggest that the low levels of atmospheric CO2 during the Last Glacial Maximum would result in a “runaway effect” that would have left the Earth completely ice-covered.

“Clearly, that didn’t happen,” Schmittner said. “Though the Earth then was covered by much more ice and snow than it is today, the ice sheets didn’t extend beyond latitudes of about 40 degrees, and the tropics and subtropics were largely ice-free – except at high altitudes. These high-sensitivity models overestimate cooling.”

On the other hand, models with low climate sensitivity – less than 1.3 degrees – underestimate the cooling almost everywhere at the Last Glacial Maximum, the researchers say. The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees.

However, uncertainty levels may be underestimated because the model simulations did not take into account uncertainties arising from how cloud changes reflect sunlight, Schmittner said.

Reconstructing sea and land surface temperatures from 21,000 years ago is a complex task involving the examination of ices cores, bore holes, fossils of marine and terrestrial organisms, seafloor sediments and other factors. Sediment cores, for example, contain different biological assemblages found in different temperature regimes and can be used to infer past temperatures based on analogs in modern ocean conditions.

“When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean,” Schmittner said. “On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different – huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.

“It shows that even very small changes in the ocean’s surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes,” he added.

Schmittner said continued unabated fossil fuel use could lead to similar warming of the sea surface as reconstruction shows happened between the Last Glacial Maximum and today.

“Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected,” he said. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”

###

Other authors on the study include Peter Clark and Alan Mix of OSU; Nathan Urban, Princeton University; Jeremy Shakun, Harvard University; Natalie Mahowald, Cornell University; Patrick Bartlein, University of Oregon; and Antoni Rosell-Mele, University of Barcelona.

===========================

Here’s the paper:

http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

95 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TheBigYinJames
November 25, 2011 12:16 am

“found that there are constraints that preclude very high levels of climate sensitivity”
Which makes (common) sense, because if sensitivity was as high as the IPCC pretended they had proof it was, the first massive vulcanism, or asteroid strike would have made us Venus sometime in the last billion years.
This is just another model, though, and it admittedly doesn’t model clouds, so we may find this figure come down again to the more reasonable 1 degree that most lukewarmers think is possible.

Stephen Wilde
November 25, 2011 12:30 am

Now they should add the thermal effect of shifting the permanent climate zones latitudinally and watch the climate sensitivity shrink even further.

Stephen Wilde
November 25, 2011 12:32 am

“When we first looked at the paleoclimatic data, I was struck by the small cooling of the ocean,” Schmittner said. “On average, the ocean was only about two degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is today, yet the planet was completely different – huge ice sheets over North America and northern Europe, more sea ice and snow, different vegetation, lower sea levels and more dust in the air.”
Quite. See explanation here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7798
“The Setting And Maintaining of Earth’s Equilibrium Temperature”.

Stephen Wilde
November 25, 2011 12:34 am

“It shows that even very small changes in the ocean’s surface temperature can have an enormous impact elsewhere, particularly over land areas at mid- to high-latitudes,” he added.”
Ho hum. This is too easy.
See:
“The Hot Water Bottle Effect”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487&linkbox=true&position=5

Rob R
November 25, 2011 12:37 am

Climate scientists, oceceangraphers etc are starting to clear a path to the door. Expect to see more papers like this over the next few year or two.

Stephen Wilde
November 25, 2011 12:37 am

“However, uncertainty levels may be underestimated because the model simulations did not take into account uncertainties arising from how cloud changes reflect sunlight, Schmittner said.”
Sorry to get boring but here you go:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.
The sun affects cloudiness and albedo as if opening and closing a set of window blinds.

Adam Gallon
November 25, 2011 12:40 am

More evidence that the models are junk?
The authors are, however, still trying to keep the faith.
“However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”

DirkH
November 25, 2011 12:51 am

I would call this good research if Schmittner had been able to avoid calling for sweeping changes to our economy. (“However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”)
But as he feels the need to throw activism into the press release, he can’t be taken seriously as a scientist. It makes him look like he has a personal interest in a certain outcome.
(I know I know I’m stating the obvious; but it HAS to be stated.)

Ken Hall
November 25, 2011 12:57 am

I have a gut instinct that sensitivity is probably close to 1.5 – 2.4 degrees for a doubling, which is about the level at which the world’s leaders want to peg warming to. This means that we don’t have to destroy industry and the global economy to meet the targets. We should just be as efficient as possible. This is good sound business practice anyway.

TerryS
November 25, 2011 1:05 am

5234.txt

After several re-runs I got the same results over and over.
Digging up a bit deeper I found out that Glacier, Greenland and Antartic melting (for 5.5xCO2) are all lower than for 4.5xCO2; sea expansion being higher as would be expected.
I think there must be some other parameter (in the sea-level model) we need to change.
Could you run MAGICC with 5.5xCO2 and one of your SRES scenarios just to double check?
I think Tom or Sarah probably know the answer to this problem.
Mark has given me an introductoty guide to IDL for my “light” reading travelling so I hope to be an “expert” next week!
I’ll e-mail you when I get back and have some new results.
Suraje

This one demonstrates that the models are so parameterised that it is possible for them to make the sea level rise or fall with an increase of CO2

November 25, 2011 1:18 am

Surprise, surprise, the BBC have actually reported on this without resorting to the Hockey stick team for quotes…
http://progcontra.blogspot.com/2011/11/shock-horror-bbc-reports-on-lowered-co2.html

November 25, 2011 1:21 am

This reduced estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing makes things very awkward. Because it is a boundary value problem, the only way to restore the status quo is to either claim that the estimation is wrong or that the climate model is wrong.
There is also the boundary problem in the advocacy sense. It won’t be easy to admit that things aren’t nearly as bad as anticipated, thus it buys time for poor nations to industrialize while the EU languishes under the cost of reduction in GHG emission.
Don’t expect many comments.

November 25, 2011 1:22 am

“If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought”
I thought that the models weren’t predictions but simply possible scenarios?

petermue
November 25, 2011 1:39 am

Sometimes computer modelers have a tendency to think that if their model doesn’t match reality then reality must be wrong.

November 25, 2011 2:03 am

This paper is no better than the myriad others before it.
When they declare climate sensitivity to be closer to zero I’ll take notice.

richard verney
November 25, 2011 2:04 am

Why must they always use models? Models are GIGO. We have observational data which would give us a better projection.
If one considers the HADCRUT3 data set (and we all know the issues with data sets such as this) for the period say 1900 to 1940 one observes warming of about about 0.4 deg. This is predominantly due to natural variation since there was relatively little increase in atmospheric CO2 during this period. If that is compared to the period 1940 to 2010, one observes a warming of about 0.5 deg. This period comprises of natural variation plus an increase in CO2 of about 1/3rd. Simplistically, this suggests that natural forcings are running at a rate of 0.4 deg C for 40 years, ie., 0.1deg C per decade.
If the natural variation drivers that were present during the period 1900 to 1940 are still operating during the period 1940 to 2010 and operating with the same force (admittedly we do not know whether this is so or whether those natural forcings are operating with more or less force), it suggests that the CO2 forcing component cannot be more than 0.1 deg C (ie., 0.5 degC – 0.4 degC) and arguably nil since during the 70 year period 1940 to 2010 temperatures rose by 0.5 deg C which is 0,07deg C per decade and this is less than the 0.1 deg C per decade of natural forcings which were operating during the 1900/1940 period.
Of course, one can take different periods and different data sets but all suggests that the response to an increase of say 33% in CO2 concentrations is modest. If the response to C02 .is logarithnic then a doubling in CO2 will result in less than 3 times the response to an the 1/3rd increase of CO2 seen these past 70 to 80 years.
Observational data during the instrument periiod suggests that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is small. This is, of course, one reason why model projections are running so warm when their projected results are viewed against current observational data.

Kelvin Vaughan
November 25, 2011 2:38 am

Their estimate is 2.4C for a doubling of CO2,
They have the math circuit board in upside down it should be: a 2.4C rise causes a doubling of CO2!

Sandy
November 25, 2011 2:46 am

Willis has shown that in the presence of a temperature governor CO2 is disconnected from temperature so *there is no meaningful sensitivity figure*.
Shout it from the rooftops, Willis!!
The sheer sense of your observation must go mainstream!

KPO
November 25, 2011 3:14 am

“Hence, drastic changes over land can be expected,” he said. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”
My take is that this study will be accepted by the consensus greatly because of that little phrase “we still have time”, since we were recently told that after 5 years of business as usual we are screwed anyway (see a previous post by Willis – Finally Some Good News!! Posted on November 11, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach. Since we all know that given that time frame even if God himself (sorry Willis) appeared and declared the “Team” all learned, correct and directly appointed by Him, there is no way in hell (sorry again) that the economies of the world could possible change course from fossil fuel based energy users to so called clean green energy. There simply isn’t a ready alternative in that time frame. So enter stage left another prophet declaring that the powers above have decided that after considerable thought, they have decided to grant us an extension if we immediately change our ways – which is indeed good news.

November 25, 2011 3:47 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 25, 2011 at 12:30 am
Now they should add the thermal effect of shifting the permanent climate zones latitudinally and watch the climate sensitivity shrink even further.

Stephen, I must have read a hundred of your comments here and suddenly the lightbulb went on when I read this.
I always though your argument was latitudinal shifts were evidence of some position you have re warming.
I now see your argument is latitudinal shifts are the mechanism for climate equilibrium. Seems a plausible theory. I’ll have to pay more attention to your evidence.

CynicalScientist
November 25, 2011 4:14 am

Ken Hall says:
I have a gut instinct that sensitivity is probably close to 1.5 – 2.4 degrees for a doubling, which is about the level at which the world’s leaders want to peg warming to.

There is no real evidence of net positive feedback. So why go past the 1.3 degrees from the straight grey body calculation.

Bill Illis
November 25, 2011 4:17 am

This is an extremely poorly done study. Even though they came up with a lower sensitivity, there are major problems with it.
– they have the Earth only -2.2C lower at the last glacial maximum when it is more like -5.0C;
– they have Anatarctic 5.0C warmer than it was according to the ice cores.
– they used the University of Victoria climate model (run by extreme global warmer Andrew Weaver);
– they have used some proxy data which indicates parts of Alaska and the north Atlantic were even warmer than today;
– they used they same artificially low ice-Albedo estimates that all climate model studies use when they are trying to get a high CO2 sensitivity. (the studies downplay the solar radiation reflected by all the extra glacial ice, sea ice, snow, desert and tundra, so that they can blame more of the temperature decline on CO2/GHGs).
Someone will just come along later and say the climate sensitivity should have 3.0C per doubling in this study since they underestimated the temperature declines at the last glacial maximum.
Online copy of the draft paper.
http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/pdf/S/schmittner11sci_man.pdf

Bloke down the pub
November 25, 2011 4:22 am

From a first reading of the paper as reported above, they seem to think that the only cause of entering or exiting an ice age is CO₂ levels. If the assumptions were expanded then the conclusions would need to be reexamined.

November 25, 2011 4:26 am

well, I think my own research still beats this one:
see my latest tables here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
a correlation can be picked up if you compare the results in my tables with that of the leaf area index shown in the world chart here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
In the red areas, where we find earth is blooming, and more greening, you will note from the results in the tables that the increase in maxima is picked up and trapped by the increasing vegetation. In the blue areas, where substantial de-forestation has been going on, you will find mean temperatures and minima declining or staying unchanged, even though maxima are rising.
So, it seems if you want the earth to be greener, a completely natural consequence is that it will also get a bit warmer.

November 25, 2011 4:28 am

I see this WUWT article as a small church service in a once-thriving religious community — a pitiful ritual, attended by the faithful few. This is far too little, far too late. The reality is, it is over. The emptiness of the sacred Greenhouse Effect has been revealed, its day is past, and the unbelievers will only increase in number from now on. Only an inevitable, and unnecessary, Trail of Tears awaits, if you persist in your greenhouse religion. (Geronimo, surrender, you can only harm your people now.) Remember the Twilight Zone episode where James Whitmore Jr. was the leader of a spacewrecked community, keeping their hopes of Earth alive with his faith, and how, when a rescue ship actually did show up, he refused to go with them, preferring to be a priest without followers, doomed never to see Earth again, rather than be once again just another man, rescued by others? Time, and truth, marches on. Lukewarmers are being left behind, along with the alarmists — a dismal, fretful company, I’m afraid.

1 2 3 4