Yet another study shows lower climate sensitivity

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.

Photo: Shutterstock
The researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming. (Photo: Shutterstock)

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.

Photo: UiB
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, explains professor Terje Berntsen at UiO. (Photo: UiB) Natural changes also a major factor

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
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
davidmhoffer
January 27, 2013 1:54 pm

HenryP;
No worries. Dealing with people who have questions that I can help answer is a bit of a hobby for my. Dealing with those like House who cling to their ignorance and put it on display for all to see makes me ill tempered. Sorry if I was short with you.

davidmhoffer
January 27, 2013 2:09 pm

anticlimactic;
In fact nowadays coffee flasks rarely have a silvered lining as the glass is replaced by stainless steel which is a poor conductor – another indication of how little radiation matters at these temperatures.
Stainless steel is an excellent conductor. You are also confusing conductance and radiance.
Warm air rises until it cools!
Warm air cools and rises at the same time. Now you are confusing convection with radiance. Both processes occur at the same time.
I am surprised at you stating that GHGs only have an effect at the radiative layer. I thought the idea was that the effect was throughout the atmosphere.
It is.
This is my assumption based on your implication that my suggestion of an experiment would not be a meaningful test.
Read the zip file from the Hug experiment like I suggested.
You say the atmosphere can not be recreated in the lab. Possibly not, but elements of it can. For example a tank containing CO2 at the density and temperature found at the radiative layer. How much radiation is absorbed, how much ‘back radiation’ is there, how long will a CO2 molecule hold the heat until it is radiated.
Once again, read the zip file as suggested.
There are also indirect methods. Consider the Sahara Desert where temperature falls of 30C in a day are common. The radiative layer seems to have no problems disposing of the heat, and it poses serious questions about ‘back radiation’!
No, it proves back radiation. Water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas but is almost entirely absent in a desert. That is why deserts cool so fast when the sun goes down. Areas with high water vapour content at the exact same latitude don’t cool off nearly as much which is evidence of the very back radiation you are trying to refute.
It also means that, at best, if there is any heating of the atmosphere by GHGs the effect would disappear within minutes of the sun setting. If GHGs had the effect you suggest then the days might be slightly warmer but the night temperatures would stay constant. Also it could not be additive, the effect would only be that achieved within any single day.
In the day time, heating processes dominate, in other words insolation. At night, cooling processes dominate. The fact that dry areas cool fast at night and humid areas cool slowly is de facto evidence of GHG effect of water vapour. You have the meaning exactly reversed.
Finally, you mention water vapour as a GHG…but water vapour is the main cooling component in the atmosphere, transporting heat from the surface to the radiative layer, so not really a true GHG.
Water vapour is like anything else, the effects vary depending upon circumstance. You cannot make a blanket statement about water vapour any more than you can about clouds. For example, clouds in day time have a net cooling effect but at night time they have a net warming effect.

pochas
January 27, 2013 2:51 pm

Steven Mosher says:
January 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm
“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.”
Not that simple, Steven. Only the CO2 bands radiate from the higher colder location. The rest of the atmosphere, which is the vast majority of it, radiates from the same lower, warmer locations as before. The effect of more CO2 is an insignificant increase in the radiation emitted from the coldest, lowest radiance layer of the atmosphere, ‘too tiny to matter.’ You should take everything the IPCC says with a grain of salt. They are rent-seekers, not scientists.

Allan MacRae
January 27, 2013 5:17 pm

HenryP says at January 26, 2013 at 8:38 am
Are you still worried that things might become worse than 1951?
Thank you Henry. I have made a “best guess” on this question in the past, but it is strictly a guess.
Here it is, from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990638
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections)? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Regards, Allan

pochas
January 27, 2013 9:50 pm

HenryP says:
January 26, 2013 at 8:27 am
I think you explain the result, not the process of what is exactly happening – in a way that most people can understand it.
pochas:
You’re probably right.
HenryP:
“The sun’s UV rays is what heats the oceans, mostly, due to the absorbency of water in the UV region. ”
pochas:
The particulates suspended in the water absorb everything the water molecules don’t. It all happens within 300 meters of the surface. Now getting the heat back to the surface so it can be radiated as infrared requires convection. A diver sees a gradual decrease in temperature as he descends through the convective zone, and then a more abrupt decline in temperatures below it.
On air-water contact: Take dry air such as the air descending in the desert regions north and south of the equator and contact it with water. Some water evaporates, it doesn’t have to be hot water. The driving force is the difference between the vapor pressure of water at the interface temperature and the vapor pressure of water in the air. The effect is to cool both the water and the air because both supply the latent heat of evaporation. This principle is behind the operation of the cooling towers and spray ponds you see associated with large air conditioning systems. And as you say it is how heat and humidity is picked up by the air mass as it heads for the thunderstorm region. Technically its called “adiabatic humidification.” But the temperature is actually controlled by the lapse rate because any infringement on the lapse rate causes the updrafts in the thunderstorm region to increase and immediately remove the excess heat by increasing the overturning circulation in the equatorial troposphere.

OnDa
January 27, 2013 10:21 pm

So do we trust scientists today or not, Gail Combs?

Allan MacRae
January 29, 2013 5:02 am

Henry MacRae
Good post. It shows vision.
___________
Thank you for your kind words Henry.
On the subject of vision, you might find the following (excerpt from my website) of interest.
Canada now has the strongest economy in the developed world, due primarily to the success of the Canadian oilsands. We are now facing significant challenges, due to our recent failures of vision, but I am hopeful that we will recover.
There were three primary factors that revitalized the Canadian oilsands industry:
– New Tax terms, which I co-initiated in 1985;
– New Royalty Terms, which I initiated in 1988;
– SAGD recovery of in-situ oilsands, which was initiated by others.
I see similar energy-based opportunities that would allow the USA to revitalize its economy. The very low cost of natural gas, now about one-fifth the cost of crude oil on an energy-equivalent basis, provides North America with a low-cost energy competitive advantage to rebuild our manufacturing industries.
It would be highly beneficial, in my opinion, to reverse the destructive decline of the American middle class. America has become too divided between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. It was the solid middle class, and solid middle-class values, that made America great. It can become so again.
Best regards, Allan
Excerpt from
http://www.oilsandsexpert.com/page_01
Excerpts from my letter to Syncrude of July 27, 1990, re Syncrude Corporate Strategies
It is significant that, more than twenty years later:
– all but one of these strategic recommendations have been successfully implemented, and
– Canada is now the 6th largest oil producer in the world, and the largest foreign supplier of oil to the USA.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The conventional oil industry in Alberta is now entering a period of decline in terms of volumes, revenues and profits. It has served as the primary “engine” of provincial economic growth and stability for the last 40 years. …. In each of these cases major economic and social benefits including jobs, energy self-sufficiency and markets for industrial products have been created by these strategic industries. As the conventional oil industry declines in Alberta, it will be necessary to find a suitable replacement. I believe it is entirely appropriate for the oilsands industry to fill this role.

We are at a critical point in the oilsands industry. Our future could consist of, on the one hand, two struggling plants, Syncrude and Suncor and little else, or alternatively, a thriving series of plants and major expansions eventually producing over half of Canada’s crude oil supply and serving as Alberta’s primary engine of economic growth and stability.

[Endorsement of the need for new Crown Royalty and Corporate Tax terms, as I proposed at the December 1988 Management Committee meeting, where we formed the Fiscal Terms Task Force. I successfully proposed new Tax Terms (Class 28, later to become Class 41) for a major Syncrude expansion in March 1985.]

January 30, 2013 3:11 pm

pochas says:
January 27, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Steven Mosher says:
January 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm
“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.”
Not that simple, Steven. Only the CO2 bands radiate from the higher colder location. The rest of the atmosphere, which is the vast majority of it, radiates from the same lower, warmer locations as before.

“The rest of the atmosphere, which is the vast majority of it,” doesn’t radiate at all!

1 6 7 8