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.

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
Re:Rob R says:
November 25, 2011 at 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.”
Well put. I think this one marks the transition from “increased restraint” to “capitulation”.
“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.”
A seemingly moderate voice emerges from the climate catastrophy camp. The movement was a bit over zealous in their prediction of immediate doom and gloom causing many to lament that it’s already too late. Being too late to do anything promotes inaction and a general acceptance that there is nothing to do. Can’t have that, there’s no money in it.
I thought the term was “Projections”.
Every climate study, even where it seems that “it’s not as bad as we thought” always closes by writing something similar to
“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.'”
I am hoping that the reason for adding this caveat is that it allowed the paper to get past the climate establishment gatekeepers but we all know how this study will be reported by the MSM and tools and useful idiots like Seth BOREenstein .
Let’s see … ECS is 2.4 … CO2 is ~390ppm, increasing at ~2ppm pa. If we keep up the current rate (which is questionable since we could be at peak oil already) then we reach 695ppm in just over 150 years time. (According to my calculations, 695ppm is the level at which the temperature increases by 2 deg C). But we’re talking about ECS, which probably takes about 80 years to reach (the IPCC is not very clear on that), so let’s say it takes 200 years to actually reach that temperature. So we have a situation in which our political leaders are taking desperate measures ostensibly to prevent the global temperature from rising 2 deg C, when it is going to take 200 years to reach that temperature at the current rate of CO2 emissions. But, we are going to be very hard pressed to go on producing fossil fuels at the current rate for 200 years, at a price which is lower than whatever advancing technology brings the alternatives down to.
In other words, we don’t have to do a single thing now or ever – or certainly not for at least 100 years to be highly conservative about it – to stop the global temperature from rising more than another 2 deg C. That’s fantastic! It’s the best news that the people worried about global warming could possibly want to hear. Tell them they can stop worrying! They’ll be SO pleased!!
“Stephen, I must have read a hundred of your comments here and suddenly the lightbulb went on when I read this.”
Thanks Philip.
That is why I persist. It takes different people differing lengths of time for the bulb to light up.
It all seems pretty obvious to me but for others with minds that are full of confusing detail the picture is hard to see.
I didn’t see anything in the paper that accounts for reduced insolation resulting from the Earth’s orbital parameters (Milankovich cycles) at 21kya, except perhaps a reference to ice albedo. There was less sunlight available at higher latitudes then and the amount of solar energy is the primary driver of ice ages (http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf). Without taking the differences of this variable into account, perhaps the climate sensitivity estimate of this study should be even lower.
They’re backing away from the consensus in small, politically/socially acceptable steps. This has happened before in science. Examples I’ve read about include the way that incorrect values assigned by consensus to certain fundamental constants were chipped away at in steps over the years to arrive at the correct value, although those making the corrections (except the last) must have realized that a larger correction was needed. But, socially/politically, that was a bridge too far.
@Harry Dale Huffman
You almost make me feel sorry for the warmistas, Harry.
Maybe I will be after Algore’s trial.
CynicalScientist says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:14 am
“There is no real evidence of net positive feedback. So why go past the 1.3 degrees from the straight grey body calculation.”
Agree – there is no real evidence of positive feedback,
AND
there is real evidence of negative feedback,
SO
the probability is “climate sensitivity” is ~1 degree C or LESS (accepting the mainstream argument);
BUT
there is perhaps a bigger problem with the mainstream argument:
Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales,
SO
the hypothesis that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature apparently assumes that the future is causing the past.
The popular counterarguments are:
a) It is a “feedback effect”,
OR
b) It is clear evidence that time machines really do exist.
Both counterarguments a) and b) are supported by equal amounts of compelling evidence. 🙂
Happy Thanksgiving to all my American friends.
Regards, Allan
Do they realize “climate sensitivity” isn’t a constant? An earth w/glaciers in the N hemisphere down to 40 deg lat will be quite different than today. The presence of high-albedo ice much closer to the equator than today seems to me would cause a much higher sensitivity since albedo changes cause much greater effect. Hence the drastic climate changes during glacial periods compared to today’s relative steady conditions w/ice confined to the high Arctic.
You can’t estimate sensitivity from glacial conditions to interglacial using estimated interglacial (modern) values.
Stephen Wilde says: November 25, 2011 at 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”
Stephen, one additional factor, perhaps included in your own latitudinal shifts would be the restriction or movement of ocean currents to the equatorial zones only. In addition, the ocean surface would be reduced, I’m guessing , 25%ish. This surface area reduction would not only be the glacial extent from the poles, but would include increased land area from sea level reduction. I will read your link later, post coffee, thanks for your thoughtful posts.
An important milestone on the road to the correct (low) climate sensitivity.
The problem is, instrumental record does not support even half degree per doubling. How come that 40ties were warmer than 80ties in the Northern hemisphere?
They can not forever parametrize their models to fit the 30-year long warm phase of PDO/AMO and to portrait it as CO2 warming.
Now Taverage = (Tmax+Tmin)/2
For a single value of ‘climate sensitivity’ to exist, then a plots of Taverage vs Tmin and/or Tmax would have to have a slope of 1.0; daily, monthly and annually.
Moreover, unlike the assertion of the authors of this paper maintain, it would have to be equal over land and ocean. Should land be heated more that water, then the Southern hemisphere would warm much less than the Northern.
If there were to be a larger energy gradient between the two hemispheres, there would be a corresponding increase in atmospheric heat transfer; resulting in a change in wind patterns and speeds.
It is hard to envisage, mathematically, how ‘climate sensitivity’ can be both global and linear.
HenryP says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:26 am
So, it seems if you want the earth to be greener, a completely natural consequence is that it will also get a bit warmer.
About the same time we stopped burning trees for fuel, and replaced them with coal, then oil, the temperatures started rising.
As the Japanese JAXA satellite shows, is the the industrialized areas of the northern hemisphere that are ABSORBING the CO2, while the poorest countries in the third world are emitting the CO2.
Why? Because Nature emits 30 times as much CO2 each year as humans. By cutting down trees and NOT REPLACING them, as is happening in large areas of the third world to support population increases, humans are affecting natural CO2 levels.
And as the temperatures cool, the next study will somehow show even less sensitivity and more sensibility.
The snow and ice cover probably explains the below 1.3 sensitivity underestimating cooling.
Breaking news!!! Our favorite Aggie, Andy Dessler is now a luke-warmer skeptic!!
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/prominent-alarmist-changes-tune/
Apparently, in response to a question posed to him regarding this study, Dessler states,
I read about it here….. http://blog.chron.com/sciguy
“….and compare it with climate model simulations of that period….”
Got it ! Just dont forget the fudge factors!
They should read Petit et.al. and Fisher et.al. in …..Science…
Someday, I suspect that someone will discover a more compelling climate thermal forcing factor than today’s usual suspect, CO2. It will probably be hailed as a great discovery.
The final paragraph makes it sound like they just want to reset the CAGW doomsday clock since it already expired the previous round of fear mongering. “However, our study implies that we still have time to prevent that from happening, if we make a concerted effort to change course soon.”
Why is it always the same basic conclusion that we must cease using fossil fuels NOW or we are all going to die?
Spector says:
November 25, 2011 at 7:58 am
Someday, I suspect that someone will discover a more compelling climate thermal forcing factor than today’s usual suspect, CO2. It will probably be hailed as a great discovery.
===============================================================
Yeh, probably something esoteric like the sun and clouds.
The backpedaling begins. I’m suprised they left no probability for less than 1C. Entire GHE = ~333 W/m2 for ~33C temperature gain, so, 33/333 = ~0.1 C/W/m2. Radiative “forcing” from 2xCO2 is supposed to be 3.7 W/m2, so, 0.1 x 3.7 (W/m2’s cancel) = ~0.37C sensitivity for 2xCO2.