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
I posted this note, probably several years ago.
Observe how the global warming alarmists, scientists and politicians alike, are gradually preparing their exit routes, after decades of false scaremongering and fraudulent misappropriation of scarce global resources on a fabricated, non-existent crisis.
Climate sensitivity estimates are being reduced, but the warmists still allege that there is cause for alarm and the need for climate action. This downward trend will continue until a climate sensitivity of much less than one degree C is the new consensus.
Then someone will point out that there is no global warming crisis, which some of us wrote confidently a decade ago!
___________
Mr. A. Right said
“I probably won’t live long enough to see this particular hysteria replaced by the next “peril”.
Sir, first let me wish you a long and happy life.
Next, let me assure you that global warming hysteria will not last much longer. It will die of exposure and hypothermia, caused by global cooling.
The common sense of the common man will see through the fraud of alleged global warming long before many of the self-appointed “intelligentsia” do so.
Imbecile politicians all over the cooling world will be forced to follow. They will be humiliated to realize that they were fooled, and by inference, are fools.
Perpetuators of this fraud will be exposed and some could even face prosecution. That is why we are now seeing the reversal in academic circles mentioned in George Wills’ above article.
Global warming alarmists are now trying to prepare a “soft exit” for themselves. Tactically, they are straddling the political fence, saying there will be no global warming for several decades, possibly even some cooling, but dangerous global warming will surely return.
Of course global warming will return – Earth’s temperature is predominantly natural and cyclical.
But people will simply not buy into the fraud of catastrophic global warming much longer, and more and more warmists will abandon ship as the ice closes in.
The tragedy is that, in the meantime, trillions of dollars will be wasted on the fraud of global warming, funds that should have been dedicated to real and pressing human needs, instead of being squandered on imaginary fears.
A further concern is that we may be totally unprepared for global cooling, should it be severe.
Humanity survives and thrives much better in warm periods than in cold ones. During the Maunder Minimum about 1700, some Northern countries lost one-third of their populations.
davidmhoffer says, January 26, 2013 at 5:10 am: “The IPCC version is correct, The idiocy you linked to has nothing to do with what the IPCC says”
========================================================
What you call “idiocy” is the IPCC explanation of the so called greenhouse effect. It starts like that:
“Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?
Frequently Asked Question 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?”
And then the text follows I quoted in my previous comment.
I do not like the word “idiocy”, but the IPCC version is like 160 years old and was debunked 100 years ago, see my previous comment.
No statistician here, but Bayesian stats are very useful as it focuses uncertainty into the “prior”, and the prior incorporates previous experience & results. This can be “abused” of course.
To me, the proper “prior” for climate sensitivity analysis is the base CO2-doubling sensitivity — ~1.2C. Water vapor enhancement isn’t proven because additional WV can both increase (GH effect) and decrease (reflective clouds and increased convection rate) the sensitivity.
Pochas said
At the equator surface temperatures are limited by the local wet adiabatic lapse rate to 30C because any excess above that infringes the lapse rate and causes immediate intensification of the thunderstorm belt at the intertropical convergence zone which moves heat to the top of the troposphere and controls surface temperatures in that region.
Henry says
I think you explain the result, not the process of what is exactly happening – in a way that most people can understand it. Did you ever have some low boiling fluid like freon on your hand/armpits and did you notice how much energy it extracts (how cold your hand/arm pit becomes) as the fluid evaporates? You can actually get cold burn, if you are not careful.
The sun’s UV rays is what heats the oceans, mostly, due to the absorbency of water in the UV region. This means that most of those particular UV rays coming in will be converted to heat. Once this heat in the top layer of the molecules reaches boiling point, at the ruling pressure, you get evaporation and that extracts energy from the layer of molecules lying below. That is why you will never get the water above 32 or 33C (from the sun’s rays).
I hope Willis will also still respond to my previous post on this.
Henry@Allan MacRae
Good post. It shows vision.
The results of my investigations into this lead me to believe that by 2038 or 2039 we will be back to where we were in 1951. I don’t think things will become cooler than that. http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/01/24/our-earth-is-cooling/
So I am not too worried. Are you still worried that things might become worse than 1951?
Greg House;
I do not like the word “idiocy”, but the IPCC version is like 160 years old and was debunked 100 years ago, see my previous comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you remain stuck with the physics of 100 years ago as if nothing has happened between then and now. You read up until the point you see something that you think agrees with your world view, then you stop. All attempts by a long list of rather well qualified scientists from both sides of the debate to point out to you that there has been a century of physics since then have been futile.
davidmhoffer says, January 26, 2013 at 8:42 am: “All attempts by a long list of rather well qualified scientists from both sides of the debate to point out to you that there has been a century of physics since then have been futile.”
====================================================
There has been 33 years of unscientific climate scam.
Henry@Greg House
I agree with you abt the 33 year scam. Do you agree with what I have said here?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Steve B says:
January 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm
“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. Thats why there is no climate sensitivity.”
Yes water can heat from above. Ever swum in a small river after a few hot summer days? The top 2 feet is warm but it drops a few degrees at about 2 meters down. Or how about a shallow pond or the kiddies swimming pool at a swim center.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you are talking shallow water do not forget sunlight penetrates and interacts with what ever is forms the bottom of the pond and then you get heating via conduction.
I would just like to comment on your post. Water of course accepts radiation and if you have clear days your river will naturally heat quicker than on cloudy days
I carried out two experiments to arrive at my conclusions. First I fired a heat gun at the surface of water in a bucket. A heat gun operates at about 450degs C. At that temp I expected to see steam rise almost immediately. After 5mins, no steam so I stopped and checked the water, result, water STONE cold including the surface where I had been applying the heat. The second experiment was to compare the uptake of heat in two almost identical basins. Basin 1, water completely uncovered, basin 2, same as basin 1 except that there is ablack baking dish floating on the surface to kill the surface tension. Heat applied to the basins fot 15mins each in turn. The result I got was an increase in temp in basin 1 of 6degsF and in basin 2 the increase in temp was 48degsF. It needs to be noted that the increase in temp in basin1. is probably due to the fact that the heat being applied is fan forced and simulates weight thereby makin the surface tension drop its guard. The difference in rate of heat uptake convinces me. RGDS
bones says: @ur momisugly January 25, 2013 at 7:39 pm
But when he says that surface tension has anything to do with it, he is not. It is one thing to say that IR is absorbed in a very thin surface layer (which he did not say), quite another to say that surface tension has anything to do with it and even then, it is incorrect to say that none of that heat is conducted downward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He explained what he meant by that statement a while back but I am not going to go look for it.
“… it is incorrect to say that none of that heat is conducted downward….”
Actually it is correct to say the heat is not being conducted downward and instead is dissipated through evaporation.
All you have to do is look at the graphs to see CO2 back radiation is a minor bit player when talking about the ocean.
graph 1 The sunlight penetrating the ocean to 10 meters below the surface is roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the energy that arrived at the surface of the earth from the sun.
Now look at the next graph.
graph 2 “99% of sun’s radiation fall between 0.2 – 5.6um; 80% – 0.4 – 1.5um” and those wavelengths have an energy peaking at 10^9 times as much energy at the visible wavelengths compared to the peak energy of the infrared wavelengths emitted by the earth.
Now look at the actual wavelengths that interact with CO2
graph 3
The most important vibrational and rotational transitions for CO2 is
Center……Band interval
667…………..540-800
961
plus…………..850-1250
1063.8
2349………….2100-2400
Visible and near-IR absorption bands
2526………….2000-2400
3703………….3400-3850
5000………….4700-5200
6250………….6100-6450
7143………….6850-7000
Chart from http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
CO2 is reflecting back to earth at MAX 1/2 of a very low amount of energy at a few wavelength bands.
Greg House;
There has been 33 years of unscientific climate scam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh well, that excuses you does it? They think that 2+2=5 so it is OK for you to argue that 2+2=3? Them being wrong makes you right?
If you want to be of any value in this debate then learn the physics and argue from fact. If all you do is continue your nonsense then you do great harm because you become one of the useful idiots whose comments get mocked by those who seek to discredit skeptics and use stupidity like yours as an example. When physicists from completely different sides of the debate all tell you that you are wrong, and for the exact same reasons, perhaps it might be logical for you to start learning from them and focusing on the areas in which they disagree instead of making a fool of yourself on the areas in which they agree.
David says:
January 25, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Gail, much of your comment and charts….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might be interested in this paper I found via the same blog:
(Leif Svalgaard isn’t going to be happy with that information)
Shaviv has one chart in his paper that show “Maximum annual depth (in meters) of the mixed layer based on the ocean temperature data set of Levitus and Boyer.” It varies from 25 meters to ~ 500 meters. The tropics having the shallowest depth and increasing to the poles with the deepest, no doubt due to all the stuff growing in the ocean as you get closer to the equator.
There is another reverence you might be interested in: Introduction To Physical Oceanography – OceanWorld – Texas A&M
Interesting charts:
pg 66 – Zonal average heat transfer to the ocean by Insolation
pg 71 – Northward heat transport
pg 81 – Mixed Layer
pg 98 – Absorption of sunlight as a function of wavelength
pg 99 – Transmittance of visible light (% per meter)
pg 100 – % reflectance by wavelength
The percentage of 465 nm light reaching 100 meters is less than 5% and at 160 meters is less than 1% according to the chart on page 99. That seems to agree pretty well with the graph at klimaatfraude
“That would mean that your next grant would depend on how good your prediction was.”
If only. It has long been clear, however, that when it comes to AGW, accuracy is a distant second to coming up with the “right” answer.
Oh no, “it’s worse than we thought”….. Someone pease try to update Nicholas Stern on climate sensitivity before he installs too much panic at Davos:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos
Oops, please and instills, darned touch keypad with false auto correct
Gail Combs: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.1959&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Has that paper been published?
davidmhoffer says, January 26, 2013 at 11:01 am : “They think that 2+2=5 so it is OK for you to argue that 2+2=3? Them being wrong makes you right?”
=======================================================
Of course, it makes me right about them being wrong, it is obvious.
The whole IPCC thing is based on something that had been proven wrong 70 years before they came up with that climate scam.
Their “CO2 warming by back radiation” is a fiction, because, again, it was proven that back radiation does not warm (or slows down cooling, whatever) at all or does to a negligible extent.
Note, again: it was proven scientifically, physically, by a real physical experiment.
David says:
January 25, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Gail, much of your comment and charts…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh and that chart can also be found here: http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
So that is where he got the ‘skin’ surface tension from, Dr. John L. Daly.
Greg House;
Of course, it makes me right about them being wrong, it is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Words do not exist to describe your towering intellect. I bow before thee.
“I see no reason why the exact effect of CO2 doubling could not be measured directly in a lab experiment. It is only sunlight and air so is not a complicated experiment. We can measure temperature changes to a millionth of a degree so any effect could be measured.
I doubt if this experiment will be performed as I suspect the answer would be ‘zero’.
##############
its pretty simple. Because we have GHGs ( including water vapor) in the atmosphere the earth does not radiate directly from the surface to space. the earth radiates at an altitude known as the ERL.. or effective radiating level. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere ( like doubling c02) you raise this level. The earth is then radiating from a higher colder location. That means it losses energy less rapidly. Like your coffee in a thermos. the silver lining minimizes the loss of energy via radition so the coffee cools less rapidly. The return of radiation to the coffee doesnt warm it. back radiation doesnt warm the surface, the increase in opacity slows the rate of cooling.
You cant measure this in a woods experiment or in the lab because you cant recreate the atmosphere, the stratosphere, and the ERL. The effect of adding C02 is to increase the altitude for the ERL. This means a slow down in the rate of cooling . people refer to that as warming.. less cool than it would be otherwise.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.
———–
This is all very odd.
1. Somehow we have climate sensitivity values that vary depending on which decade. I thought climate sensitivity is more or less constant.
2. They are saying that temperatures can only rise by a few degrees more, when a few days ago from the Greenland results we saw higher temperatures than this during the Eemian.
3. Other studies show a wide range of climate sensitivities. Some of the pre-now studies, including paleo, suggest high CS and contradict the idea that some mistake has been made due to recent high rates of temperature rise.
I am skeptical due to flakey arguments and evidence paradoxes.
Steven Mosher says, January 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm: “Because we have GHGs ( including water vapor) in the atmosphere the earth does not radiate directly from the surface to space. the earth radiates at an altitude known as the ERL.. or effective radiating level. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere ( like doubling c02) you raise this level. The earth is then radiating from a higher colder location. That means it losses energy less rapidly. …back radiation doesnt warm the surface, the increase in opacity slows the rate of cooling. … people refer to that as warming.. less cool than it would be otherwise”
==========================================================
This part is not the politically relevant version of the IPCC “greenhouse effect”, but I find it interesting nevertheless, because it is absurd.
The trick, or let us say in a neutral way, the mistake in your version, Steven, is that you confuse the surface and atmosphere and ambiguously use the word “Earth”. Let me remind you that the “(anthropogenic) global warming” is about close to the surface air temperature per definition.
In reality the surface is warmed by the sunlight and cooled 1.by air (conduction+convection) and 2.radiation. (Of course, air is constantly moving and warm air can warm colder surface, but let us put it aside).
Now, what is going on with the radiation after it leaves the surface is completely irrelevant to the surface temperature, unless some part of this lost radiation returns back to the surface and affects the surface’s temperature (back radiation), and that in turn affects the near the surface air temperature by conduction+convection. This is a crucial point, please, make an effort. Your “radiating from a higher colder location” meaning atmosphere is as such irrelevant.
Let me give you a simple example. If you lose 10 dollars then it is irrelevant who finds it and on which location he spends it etc, because it does not change your financial situation. It would, however, if some of this money returned to your pocket.
If back radiation is not capable for whatever reason to affect the temperature of the source (the Earth’s surface), then it absolutely does not matter what sort of adventures the primary surface radiation experiences on it’s way to the space. It is lost, gone. And the Wood experiment demonstrates that back radiation has no effect on temperature of the source or only negligible one. So the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC has no basis in science, and your small addition has no basis in science either.
You guys do not have a case against CO2.
The only way, however, CO2 might affect air temperature could be by getting warmed directly by radiation, like many other things around us, but it is not the IPCC version and second, such an effect can only be negligible (I can go into details on that, if needed).
Sorry for the mess in the last paragraph, it should have been “The only way, however, CO2 might affect air temperature could be by getting warmed directly by radiation…”
[Fixed. -w.]
Steven Mosher says, January 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm: “Like your coffee in a thermos. the silver lining minimizes the loss of energy via radition so the coffee cools less rapidly. The return of radiation to the coffee doesnt warm it. back radiation doesnt warm the surface, the increase in opacity slows the rate of cooling.”
=========================================================
I am afraid it is vacuum in a thermos that slows the rate of cooling.
Of course, if manufacturers believe that a reflective coating works they reasonably apply it in their products, and the reason they believe it might be that they read about it somewhere. Unfortunately such an effect is exactly of the kind the Wood experiment dealt with, and the result is known, so apparently the reflective coating in a thermos has no or only negligible effect and is worthless.
I’m going to disagree with you there about the thermos:
Heat is lost from the hot coffee (or tea for ya’ll across the pond) by conduction convection, and radiation to a cooler body.
So they isolate the coffee from the walls and floor of the thermos, and try to isolate the coffee with an insulating material (often a simple ring of soft plastic to keep the thermos from leaking in wash water or spilled coffee), and suspend the hot well of coffee from the top so conduction is minimized.
Then they minimize convection by placing the inner well inside an outer glass well, pump out the air between, and seal the glass.
Then they minimize radiation losses to the wall with that reflective coating on the walls. But notice that the reflective coating tends to work “right at the surface” by reflecting energy from the mass behind the coating back into the mass. They don’t want a “black body” (or even a grey body) surface. They want a surface that doesn’t radiate at all – if they could get it. Second order effects of the reflective surface on the outer wall are helpful: radiation from the hot outside of the coffee-filled wall surface strikes the inside of the reflective outside wall. There, part of that energy is reflected back from the inside of the cold outer wall back towards the outside of the hot (coffee) side.