From the University of New South Wales and Dr. Steven Sherwood:
“Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”
Yeah…right:
![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100
Cloud impact on climate sensitivity unveiled
Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.
The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.
“Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” said lead author from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.
“When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.”
The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.
Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.
When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.
However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15km updraughts are present.
The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower-level water vapour process. Instead they simulate nearly all updraughts as rising to 15 km and forming clouds.
When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
However, real world observations show this behaviour is wrong.
When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world, the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.
This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.
The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide – which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.
“Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Prof. Sherwood.
“Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not another Hokey Schtick?
I’d have thought the market was saturated by now.
It must be nice to live in a world where the more you are wrong, the more right you are.
What a joke! do they not look at the real world observations and see that even the lower end models are way too high. Their conclusions supporting the high end models are ludicrous at best!!!
Unbelievable nonsense!
‘Science’ and religion move inexorably closer.
Stand by for excited support from creationists.
1) run with those proposed sensitivities from the beginning of the industrial era & tell me your error compared to observed temps – it will be huge – it will make the pause look like a rounding error. And then tell me why this theory has any validity at all when it doesn’t fit the observed data at all.
2) brought to you by the same school that brought you a ship stuck in Antarctic ice, trying to prove the ice was disappearing due to AGW (UNSW)
Credibility = Zero
This is fantastic news!
They are buying the rope from which they will hang (so to speak). By all means, continue on.
When all else fails, double down. If you’re playing with other people’s money, you can’t lose.
Willis’s latest analysis is the perfect reposte to this rubbish.
Maybe they need to start with controlled experiments. Then model those to see if the model can predict the observation of the experiments. If it can then try more complex experiments. After that move on to modeling earths climate.
===========================================================
Agreed!
(Now we need a Troll to be the thread whiner.)
SMC says:
December 31, 2013 at 12:07 pm
“Now, my model on the other hand strongly suggests the #18 Broncos forcing is clearly the dominant factor in the rise to the Super Bowl. This is backed by evidence and observation. I theorize the Broncos will win.”
Puhlesse … In fact it’s known that the #12 Patriots forcing is 2.5 times greater than the #18 Broncos forcing. This is measured data, not a model. It is also true that the Belichick is wilier than the Fox and similar creatures in all climates, especially winter. Your model fails to account for these additional variables and is doomed to failure. In fact, failure to model these variables correctly has led grown men to cry
Huffington has posted this story, over 1300 comments.
I despair. At least 95% have swallowed it hook line and sinker, and are busy sneering at everyone who suggests that maybe it isn’t true. The whole debate really has taken on religious tones with only a tiny minority on both sides arguing the case with actual information. I have one friend whose iron bound belief in the theory is strongly based on the fact that a republican senator started debunking it years ago. If the Repubs think it is wrong, it must be true, is pretty much his line of thought.
And I meant it when I said both sides. There are a lot of skeptics who disbelief is a matter of belief rather than an examination of the facts and is based on who is on the other side.
There is just no way you can argue religion with a true believer. They will just pull out the tired old “Because the Bible says so” or the equivalent. 97% of scientists say so.
This is getting beyond craziness. We are now in the realm of climate insanity.
Obviously I am wrong. I always look at the facts. But maybe I need to follow the media. ‘Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story!’
This is like Nancy Pelosi saying, “Food Stamps are the best way to stimulate the economy!” or the President saying, “You absolutely can keep your doctor”…
Everyone (the public) now know these things are not true (including CAGW). But the “Main Stream Media” still will not say the Emperor has no clothes. (By Emperor, I mean whatever their left wing cause du jour is).
As 2014 rolls in, I’m thankful for alternative media, news outlets, blogs, etc — because the MSM has been looking a lot like Pravda the last 10-20 years or so… (It’s incredible how hard CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc work at NOT doing their jobs!)
How is the opposition to climate change alarmism doing at the end of 2013?
To sum up the Main Stream Media’s view on climate change for 2013, here is a typical quote from about two weeks ago:
“The evidence, the facts, the science, and the reality are clear: The Earth is warming up, the climate is changing, it’s happening faster now than it has for thousands of years, and we’re the reason behind it.”
————————————————–
Survey by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Council on Foreign Relations. Methodology, Nov 6, 2013:
“I’d like your opinion about some possible international concerns for the US. Do you think that…global climate change is a major threat, a minor threat or not a threat to the well being of the United States?”
Not a threat: 20%
Minor threat: 30%
Major threat: 45%
————————————-
“The United Nations has announced its next global warming international meeting for New York City on Sept. 23, 2014, under the banner, “Climate Summit 2014: Catalyzing Action.”
The 2014 UN global warming summit is being billed as a prelude to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, Conference in 2015, at which UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hopes to advance the UN agenda to get a final international agreement signed in Paris to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol carbon emission reduction agreement dating back to 2008.
“I challenge you to bring to the summit bold pledges,” Ban Ki-Moon said in a UN statement. “Innovate, scale-up, cooperate and deliver concrete action that will close the emissions gap and put us on track for an ambitious legal agreement through the UNFCC process.”
—————————————–
You can find some great TED talks on Netflix. The last few days I’ve watched a lot of them, they are short. I saw many well groomed, well spoken authority figures who have no doubt whatsoever about CAGW.
“…appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation…”
Oh, so this study- one study- clears it all right up?!? One of the “great unknowns” in one of the wickedest of the wicked problems? One paper?
(I think I found the fast track to the spam filter. Third and last (edited) try.)
========================================================================
Agreed!
(Now we need someone to be thread whiner.)
Let me get this straight: (1) models that have shown rising temperatures so far are not perfect; (2) models showing temperatures not rising enough are wrong; (3) reality is even more wrong. Is that the gist of this article?
So then the no warming in last 17 years is even more of an anomaly ?
What happens to the mean of the plotted models in the figure shown when “those models which predict less warming” are deleted?
It’s just too easy to show that Sherwood is talking more rubbish. Comments here already adequately prove that, so I won’t bother repeating.
I’ll just point out that I’ve just heard this fraud on local (Australian) radio say “… it’s here in our backyard already… in the eastern Pacific…”)
Australia in the eastern Pacific??? This guy can’t even get his compass right.
Some will say this is just a slip of the tongue. To me it just reveals a man again mouthing off about something he knows nothing about.
Why do you North Americans keep exporting your duds to us? What have we ever done to you?
I think farmers probably know more about clouds and climate than these so called “climate scientist” what if modelers.
Mods, I recently made 3 comments on this thread that disappeared. Did they go to the spam filter or is there another issue? (I do a program that can mask my email address. I didn’t think it was active here.)
Yay, Australia leading the world! I think 8C is the new world record CAGW prediction.
Clearly the Centre of Excellence is working well at UNSW – one is a world champion modeller, and the other one is on the Academic Schloktacular in Antarctica providing first hand proof of how ice is melting at the South Pole and refreezing 4m thick at 65S due to Gerbil Worming.