Excerpts from The Register, coverage of the Nic Lewis paper.
This graph below from Bishop Hill shows that it isn’t just one paper, but several now that show lower climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.
===============================================================
More and more likely that double CO2 means <2°C: New study
Yes, it warms the planet – just not as much as thought
The results of a new approach to calculating the effect of CO2 – using empirical observations – suggest it has a lower impact on the climate than previously thought, and its effects are being over-estimated by the IPCC.
Publishing in the American Meterological Society’s Journal of Climate, a new paper called An improved, objective Bayesian, approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity, Nicholas Lewis applies objective Bayesian techniques and uses more up-to-date observational data to derive his conclusions.
…
Very few people disagree with the basic fact that the greenhouse gas CO2 warms the climate, but without some kind of positive feedback mechanism, it doesn’t add very much: around 1°C-1.2°C per doubling of CO2. (See this discussion on no-feedback sensitivity). The global warming “crisis” emerged from a belief that small rises in CO2 concentrations result in large knock-on effects, or strong positive feedbacks. These remain conjectural, as the forcings and feedbacks are poorly understood. Just how much of an effect does a rise in CO2 have – a little, or a lot? Hence the importance of new and better studies in the area of climate science dealing with “attribution”.
Lewis finds that in recent years neither the global temperature nor ocean heat uptake have changed very much, while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise. Therefore, the climate sensitivity must be lower.
==============================================================
Full article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/22/climate_sensitivity_down_down/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Jimmy Haigh. says:
April 24, 2013 at 9:19 am”
From my school days I recall ammonia has a higher SHC than water. Still water has a SHC ~75 times that of water so its clear alarmists don’t understand this basic fact which disproves their claim that warm air heats water.
“Steven Mosher says:
April 24, 2013 at 10:58 am”
His experiments were closed, lab based, experiments, Mythbusters like IMO. Nothing at all a reflection on the real world and thus void.
“Rachel says:
April 25, 2013 at 4:40 am”
The climate of Earth changed ~4500 years ago over what is now Ethiopia so much so rainfall patterns changed which, eventually, lead to the drying of Giza in Egypt. Sensitivity to changes in CO2 or changes in solar energy and/or planetary axial tilt? I would go with the latter two.
Rachel says:April 25, 2013 at 4:40 am
The problem with CO2 is that it does not correlate with temperature.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2582sg6.jpg
I mean…
“Jimmy Haigh. says:
April 24, 2013 at 9:19 am”
From my school days I recall amonia has a higher SHC than water. Still, water has a SHC ~75 times that of AIR so its clear alarmists don’t understand this basic fact which disproves their claim that warm air heats water.
richardscourtney says:
April 25, 2013 at 4:00 am
Thanks for your response. It is valuable as a stand alone document and most likely clarifies many questions for many readers. I am grateful to you for your powerful work at WUWT on behalf of science.
Theo Goodwin:
re your post addressed to me at April 25, 2013 at 11:40 am.
Sincere thanks for your kind words, but your unjustifiable flattery was not needed.
It is pleasing that at least one person can see my motivation. Thankyou.
Richard
Here’s another possibility for a latter-day Jane Austen novel …. Crud and Credulity.
An obscure climate scientist gains fame and fortune through pandering to agendized politicians who prefer the visual impacts of iconic symbolism over the dry conclusions of disciplined scientific analysis.
Crud and Credulity (hey! the bolding went away when I copied that in here, shoot!) LOL, BB. [#:o)]
Yeah, that’s the pulp fiction novel about how little Michael Mann goes from rags to riches.
[NOTICE: READ THIS IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE GETTING TO SLEEP TONIGHT — otherwise, GO TO at least the next post for something worthwhile]
… Strolling down the dirt road, whistling “Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue,” slaying butterflies with his hockey stick, Michael stopped short. Dropping the stick and digging down into his pockets, he discovered that he had only three cents. “I’m broke!” he exclaimed. Dismay turned instantly to rage. He picked up his hockey stick and raised it over his head to smash it against a big rock when a sharp “HISSS!” made him freeze.
“Sssssoooo, you are angry because you have no money,” hissed the large, mud colored, snake coiled on the rock.
“I am!” Michael bellowed. “And I’m sick and tired of no one listening to me!”
“I can tell you how to get rich by getting people to lissssten to you,” said the snake.
“You can?” Michael’s eyes narrowed. “How? All I have in the world is this STUPID HOCKEY STICK.” He seized it with both hands, about to smash it over his knee (yeah, that would have hurt, but Mann never thought too far ahead when it came to anything he did).
*** — oops! apologies for the plot spoiling, now you know that it doesn’t turn out too good for the little guy in the end… — ****
“Use your hockey sssstick,” the snake murmured quietly. “Tell everyone it predictsssss the weather and charge them ten dollars per prediction.”
Mann scratched his head, “How do I do that? My hockey stick is looking kind of rough. I don’t think it will fool anyone into thinking it’s some new-fangled weather predictor.”
“Oh, my dear boy, the roughnesssss will make it look more authentic,” said the snake, baring its teeth in a facsimile of a smile, “just twirl it around and talk very loudly and quickly. And never ever tell anyone your ssssssecret.”
“But, what if I don’t get the prediction right?” whined Michael. “They’ll toss me into the lake and I can’t swim.”
The snake answered smoothly, “Always do your predicting at the end of the day, then, leave town in the night.”
“Now, why in the world would the cunning snake help Michael when it benefited the snake not a whit,” you might ask. Because snakes find deceit intrinsically rewarding. They adore lies. They also enjoy their victims’ ultimate ruin due to living by deceit. The snake knew it was only a matter of time until Michael ran out of towns to run from. [skipping a lot MORE boring stuff]
… as Michael was sneaking out of town one dark and stormy night (he had predicted unceasing rain for the next day), he tripped over a STEYN and when morning came, with bright sunshine and not a cloud in the sky, the townspeople grabbed him and were about to make a public example of him when the snake’s 256th cousin hissed from under the courthouse steps, “Sssssue the Sssssteyn.” That best-defense-is-a-good-offence tactic backfired on Michael, however. It only served to illuminate and magnify his chicanery. SO HE LOST IN COURT and his hockey stick was confiscated and he drank himself to death (I’m tired of writing this!). The End.
Re: “Trenberth and his ‘unobservable observables in the deep ocean.'”
Glendower: “I can call spirits from the vasty deep.” Hotspur: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?” Henry IV, Part I, Act 3
Nice quote, Dixie Pooh! What a memory you have.
Beta Blocker:
Thankyou for your suggestion at April 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm; viz.
Outstanding!
That is by far the best comment on the thread. It deserves wider circulation.
Thankyou.
Richard
I believe there was a different climate regime then, because there was a gap between N & S America at Panama.
To all the lukewarmists: if Arrhenius was right, how can it be that (ocean) warming leads CO2 increase? The logic just fails. It’s no sale. Won’t wash. DOA. Bye-bye.