Global warming less extreme than feared?
Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.
Internationally renowned climate researcher Caroline Leck of Stockholm University has evaluated the Norwegian project and is enthusiastic.
“These results are truly sensational,” says Dr Leck. “If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
Temperature rise is levelling off
After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise.
It is the focus on this post-2000 trend that sets the Norwegian researchers’ calculations on global warming apart.
Sensitive to greenhouse gases
Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global mean temperature is expected to rise if we continue increasing our emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. A simple way to measure climate sensitivity is to calculate how much the mean air temperature will rise if we were to double the level of overall CO2 emissions compared to the world’s pre-industrialised level around the year 1750.
If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at our current rate, we risk doubling that atmospheric CO2 level in roughly 2050.
Mutual influences
A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.
Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.
In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming.
Manmade climate forcing
“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO). The project has received funding from the Research Council of Norway’s Large-scale Programme on Climate Change and its Impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA).
“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”
For their analysis, Professor Berntsen and his colleagues entered all the factors contributing to human-induced climate forcings since 1750 into their model. In addition, they entered fluctuations in climate caused by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. They also entered measurements of temperatures taken in the air, on ground, and in the oceans.
The researchers used a single climate model that repeated calculations millions of times in order to form a basis for statistical analysis. Highly advanced calculations based on Bayesian statistics were carried out by statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center.
2000 figures make the difference
When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.
But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9°C.
Professor Berntsen says this temperature increase will first be upon us only after we reach the doubled level of CO2 concentration (compared to 1750) and maintain that level for an extended time, because the oceans delay the effect by several decades.
The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.
This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.
Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”
Climate issues must be dealt with
Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.
Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.
Sulphate particulates
The project’s researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates.
Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming.
But the findings of the Norwegian project indicate that particulate emissions probably have less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling effects than previously thought.
So the good news is that even if we do manage to cut emissions of sulphate particulates in the coming years, global warming will probably be less extreme than feared.
| About the project |
| Geophysicists at the research institute CICERO collaborated with statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center on a novel approach to global climate calculations in the project “Constraining total feedback in the climate system by observations and models”. The project received funding from the Research Council of Norway’s NORKLIMA programme.The researchers succeeded in reducing uncertainty around the climatic effects of feedback mechanisms, and their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global temperature increase as a result of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.The project researchers were able to carry out their calculations thanks to the free use of the high-performance computing facility in Oslo under the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (Notur). The research project is a prime example of how collaboration across subject fields can generate surprising new findings. |
- Written by:
- Bård Amundsen/Else Lie. Translation: Darren McKellep/Carol B. Eckmann
- h/t to Andrew Montford via Leo Hickman
Steven Mosher says:
“…sensitivity to 2x cO2 cannot be zero.”
I did not say that sensitivity would be zero. Read what I wrote more carefully.
As Willis points out, CO2 is a very minor 3rd order forcing that is swamped by second-order forcings — which are in turn swamped by first-order forcings. Each order is at least an order of magnitude larger than the previous one.
CO2 simply does not matter at current and projected concentrations. More CO2 is a net benefit. More global warming is also better. Too bad CO2 is no longer contributing to that in any measurable way.
davidmhoffer says:
January 25, 2013 at 8:00 am
Then with all the data up to 2000 they come up with sensitivity of 3.7 but then they add in the data post 2000 it drops to 1.9 … a good sign that [their] model is trash.
—
You beat me to it. That point stuck out like a sore thumb. If their model were indeed able to properly separate natural variability from human influences, the sensitivity should not change when the time series is shortened or extended.
CO2 is still trending at 2ppmv per year on average, no?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
So:
280ppmv pre-industrial and 560 for a doubling?
and:
395 today and +2ppmv per year = 165/2 = 82.5 years.
therefore:
“… If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at our current rate, we risk doubling that atmospheric CO2 level in roughly 2050.”
equals:
NOT
Or am I not including some climasci-fudge-factor?
Steven Mosher says
“…sensitivity to 2x cO2 cannot be zero.”
Henry says
it could be negative.
In fact, why don’t you bring me the balance sheet that I have been asking from you for such a long time?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/
The results of my investigations suggest that all warming from 1950 (when CO2 measurements began) was natural. Earth will now be cooling down until about 2038. In the next two decades NATURAL global cooling will accelerate and by 2039 we will be back to where we were in 1951.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/
Be happy. Although I suspect that for some it will not be such a happy time, shoveling snow and all that slippery jazz.
@davidmhoffer,
More than trash, the so called “model” is modelling nothing, because what happens in another 10 years if the temps (more than likely) go down further? Their “model’s” output will drop further — so where’s the “modelling?” This so called model is nothing of the sort but merely an echo chamber of what ever you put in. Or looking at it from another way garbage in, garbage out.
RMB says:
January 25, 2013 at 7:42 am
> You can not heat water from above. surface tension blocks the heat very emphatically and very convincingly.
Sure you can, just use air with a dewpoint higher than the water. Think wetbulb sling psychrometer in reverse.
What’s that sound? Oh, that’s just the sound of the CAGW goalposts being moved. Again. Same game though. Do they really think that anyone is fooled by this?
Or it could be that the leveling of 21st century temps is because the sun is a much bigger player than the modelers assume, in which case the imminent danger is cooling, not warming, but these cowards refuse to even consider the possibility. Their funding would immediately turn off, so they play along with the unplugging of the modern world. Evil.
Climate sensitivity could easily be Zero.
First of all, we do not know that the 5.35 ln(2 :CO2 doubling) W/m2 forcing for CO2 is correct or that it works the same way at the surface.
It might only be 2.0 Ln(2) = +1.38 W/m2.
And then the feedbacks on that warming might easily be -1.38 W/m2 => Zero impact.
Where did the 5.35 ln(2) come from anyway?
It is really a tuned parametre based on some physics experiments in a glass bottle and from the assumptions that CO2 doubling translates into 3.0C per doubling. Nobody has measured this kind of actual impact in the atmosphere.
Feedbacks, Well the data to date does not have a significant positive water vapour feedback. It looks closer to Zero than the 7.0% per K assumed in the theory. Cloud feedback could easily be negative. Some measurements to date are showing it is negative (unless one does it using the new climate math where the signs of your actual data are just switched around the other way). The lapse rate is increasing based on the fact that the lower troposphere is warming at a slower rate than the surface and that predicted.
It is a Theory.
Let’s do some real atmospheric measurements.
Most of the institutional scientists have to protect their patch from any outside predators.
For years we are told:
-It is CO2
-It can not be the sun
-The TSI is nearly constant
There is more to the solar or whatever drives it than the TSI. Only few days ago I went to some old geomagnetic data from 1990s and guess what: the Earth’s magnetic field has a strong magnetic ‘zing’ fully synchronised with the sunspot cycle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-SSN.htm
I doubt that any institutional scientist would whish to follow the above finding, despite fact that it is totally unknown to the either the solar or the Earth sciences.
And so the climate sensitivity, a completely artificial device created to offset problems with the AGW hypothesis, gradually approaches zero. They did the same thing with methane when it was the target used by the animal rights people against cattle. The amount of methane was so small and declining that the public simply were not impressed. As always, they manufacture an explanation that has little or nothing to do with reality. With methane they amplified its heat trapping abilities – its climate sensitivity. As I recall they claimed it was 20 times greater than CO2, which in turn was multiples greater (the numbers varied) than water vapour.
Here is a cogent explanation of why climate sensitivity of CO2 will get to zero.
http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/01/25/sophistry-part-2-analogously-but-different-or-why-the-ipcc-lies-or-how-the-ipcc-disproves-the-greenhouse-effect/
Of course, to confirm my faith in climate sensitivity getting to zero, nobody has provided a record of any duration for any time period in which CO2 increases before temperature. In every single case the exact opposite occurs. This is a serious problem because the fundamental assumption of the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 causes temperature increase.
The current record is proof of the failure of this assumption. Mother Nature is not playing their game.
“””””…..davidmhoffer says:
January 25, 2013 at 8:00 am
They used a method that allows them to view the entire earth as a giant laboratory? What did they think the rest of the methods use? A single thermometer on the back of a donkey wandering around Afghanistan?…..”””””
Well why not David; after all, that is exactly what Mother Gaia is doing. She has a thermometer in every atom or molecule so she knows what the global Temperature and climate are supposed to be from her modelling, and she always comes up with the correct result.
Earth’s climate is always just what it is supposed to be.
Now, if they’d only add ocean oscillations to their model they might get somewhere. Probably drop the sensitivity by another 2C.
RMB says:
January 25, 2013 at 7:42 am
So the ocean is heated from below? Funny how no one noticed that all these years …
w.
Bill
How can it be zero when the ~200 W/m2 solar is being amplified to 500 W/m2? Why would the next additional Watt see no amplification?
The northern latitude areas have benefited from rising temperatures due to the ‘polar amplification’, but when the process is reversed they may suffer the most.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
And why is it that based on our own ignorance there might not be some feedback mechanisms and homeostatic processes that we dont know enough about to even ask the questions of what they might be. The unknown unknowns may be raising their ugly heads only to be known in 100 years or so. How I would like to be alive in 2113 to look in the rearview mirror at all this scrambling about for answers.
Henry@Tim ball
A GH effect does exist, but it is mostly caused by clouds. In winter, cloud cover often provides a blanket meaning less heat escapes from the underlying land. Here in South Africa minimum temps. in winter can rise by between 5-10 degrees if there are clouds.
this effect explains also some of the results I get from analysing CET records.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-198
James Ard says:
January 25, 2013 at 8:18 am
Off topic, but this morning on cspan they had a Reuters reporter taking questions on the drought. When the question of whether global warming has any influence, the reporter mentioned droughts in the 50s and the 80s and pretty much blamed cycles. I nearly fell out of my chair. I believe the ship jumping is becoming an epidemic.
*
Thanks for this, James. This was good to hear. Cheers! 🙂
Although CO2 and other GHGs are widely thought to affect global temperature the more I think about it the less I see how! What is the mechanism?
Consider the Sahara desert – scorching hot during the day but can be freezing overnight – a 40C drop in a few hours! If the atmosphere was a nice thermal blanket this could not happen.
It also means any heating of the atmosphere would disappear within a few minutes of the sun setting.
The ONLY substance to have a significant effect on global temperature is water, in all its forms. Even then it is mostly as a moderator. Everything else is the sun.
Henry@vukcevik
I am also convinced that it is a process on the sun that is causing the 88 year Gleisberg cycle. But remember the dates are important. I have determined (from data both NH and SH) that ozone started declining in 1951, %wise more in the SH than the NH, when warming started. Ozone started rising again in 1995 when cooling started (looking at energy-in).
To me, it is more likely the fluctuation in E-UV coming from the sun that causes the warming and cooling effects by changing the reactions that are happening on TOA , i.e. O3, HxOx and NOx are rising now, causing more back radiation of F-UV, meaning less energy going in the oceans. Hence, earth is now cooling.
As Willis also correctly pointed out, the oceans are heated by the sun, mostly. There maybe some volcanic heat coming in as well, but % wise I think this is very small.
They stopped their work in 2010. Now that we are getting into 2013 and with La Nina conditions threatening again, they may have to whittle down to 1.5 sensitivity with this added data. The asymptote seems to be ~1.0 which pretty much catches up with where sceptics are these days.
lgl says:
January 25, 2013 at 11:20 am
Thanks, lgl. Actually, this kind of behavior is not uncommon at all in governed systems. When the system is just started and is speeding up towards equilibrium, all kinds of amplification occurs. But when the system reaches equilibrium, additional forcing does nothing, because the opposing forces (cloud levels, T^4 radiation, internal losses, thunderstorms, El Nino, etc.) become stronger and stronger as the globe warms. At some point, they get to where any increase in forcing is matched by a corresponding increase in the opposing forces, so there’s no further temperature rise, and the sensitivity goes to zero.
For a physical example, nowhere on the planet does the deep ocean get much over 30°C … no matter how much energy it is getting. Crazy, huh? See here for my analysis of the ARGO floats and their verification of the global oceanic temperature maximum.
w.
“Global warming less extreme than feared?”
Feared? By whom?
And I would challenge that assertion; Rather basic meteorological observations show that we warm faster and also cool-off faster when a dry air-mass is in place in this part of Texas vs a humid air-mass …
Simple. Meteorological. Observations. show this.
Of course, this is due to WV, a potent GHG in it’s own right and plentifully available at times.
.