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.
Clive says:
December 31, 2013 at 11:34 am
Classmate of Turney’s? ☺
—————————————————————-
Classmates of Turkeys !
As I mentioned before, these guys clearly didn’t do the math, so I will do it for them :
Input :
pre-industrial CO2 : 286 PPM (in 1850)
Current CO2 : 395 PPM (in 2013)
Observed temp change : 0.82 °C increase ( hadcrut data set – see WUWT ref pages from 1850 to present)
So, they say the range of sensitivity is 3 to 5 °C/doubling, so how much warming should have we seen since pre-industrial time ??
3°C/doubling ==> 1.40 ° C
This is 171 % greater than the observed change
5°C/ doubling ===> 2.33 ° C
This 284 % greater than the observed change
This theory is so dead on arrival , it’s a complete joke. I took 5 minutes in a spreadsheet to kill it. Anyone who wants to can verify these calculations, given the inputs – which are based on real data, not a model.
I challenge the originators of the theory to show how their sensitivity can fit the observed data. My only explanation is there would have to be large negative feedbacks in the system and if those feedbacks exist & have been operating for the last 165 years, why would we expect they wouldn’t continue into the future ??
BTW, using this same methodology & calculating sensitivity from the delta T & delta Concentration (a model that fits the observed data), you come up with 1.79°C/ doubling – in line with many other recent studies.
What part of the temperature hasn’t risen in 18 years doesn’t he understand?Some say more.
I added another year because the clock ticked over into 2014.
Who is he trying to sell his new “snake oil” to?
I’m not buying like the growing majority.
Like so many of these fraudsters, they will be well and truly of the public teat when they are exposed.
Some will be dead.
paullinsay says:
December 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“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”
Puhleesse yourself paulinsay. I will stipulate the #12 Patriots forcing is a significant factor in the rise however, based on the most recent available data your 2.5x forcing is clearly in error. The #18 Broncos forcing has substantially more impact. Records have been broken by the #18 Broncos forcing and have reached unprecedented levels. Your need to cherry pick the data clearly shows your desperation to support your untenable position. I agree the ultimate out come will be http://crossfitnewengland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ryan-e1381708480259.jpg . And while the Belichick is indeed a wily creature capable of adapting to extreme environments you must remember What Does the Fox Say http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjofNR_WkoCE&ei=T3LDUvbRFOjgyQG0oYDICw&usg=AFQjCNE9-Z1oW5gVjc6rJg_-KAhmjY_Qfg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc
Here is our latest MODEL… (ignore reality)…. LOOK AT THIS SHINY NEW MODEL….
One more for the round file…
How do we bring these people back to reality?
I tell you the bird is not dead….he’s sleeping.
That bird is dead!
No! He sleeping.
I remember the skit.
Monty Python I believe.
So, Monty’s group is writing comedy for CAGW.
Who knew?
cn
The graph in the head post is the final death blow to the whole CAGW modeling scam. The participants in these models surely cringe every time it is presented to the public. They know their name and academic credibility is on the line for all to see. Is it incompetence or fraud?
{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.}
Paging Dr. Spencer? Paging Dr. Spencer!
It’s stupider than we thought.
Is the tropical mid-troposphere particularly significant for the CAGW hypothesis? How do the models fare when we compare their forecasts with observations for other areas?
“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,”
Well my research shows that none of the climate models reproduce the correct processes leading to cloud formation. In fact GISS for example is documented to show it is nothing more than a fit. Ce la vie I guess.
If my memory serves me Sherwood has a long history of writing junk science papers that use models to “prove” models. He once coauthored a paper that proved wind patterns proved that the upper atmosphere has warmed where direct measurement had failed.
Looking at the charts and tables its appears they used CMIP 3 models and for observations they used MERRA. Of all the reannalysis data (MERRA is a model not observations) I’ve looked at MERRA is the sketchiest.
If models are getting one thing wrong in “not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” wouldn’t common sense tell you that they are likely to be getting other things wrong as well? For the authors of this paper to point out a major mistake and then assume that everything else the modelers are doing is correct, seems very naive to me.
Thanks for that 2-step. Sounds right. and deals with “water vapour anomalies (dictionary meaning)”.
No More Woof.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/no-more-woof
Missing from all this is the explanation from climate scientists as to how, for all those years, they were able to so confidently state, without equivocation, that man-caused global warming was a threat to one and all when only now they admit they had no clue how to accurately account for clouds – a major player in all things climate related -in the climate models they used to make those dire predictions.
Maybe someday we’ll be treated to a similar article, when they find an algorithm to take into account all the biological influences that play a huge role in the climate, but are only marginally included in their models.
What’s the source of the graph comparing model projections with actual global temperature data in this post?
I looked for a comment from Willis and it was not there, then I thought he will probably do a whole post on this as he takes it apart step by step using observations and measured data NOT MADE UP STUFF.
James Bull
Alec Rawls says:
December 31, 2013 at 11:30 am
I don’t doubt that the models that show less warming get clouds wrong. I am quite certain that ALL the models get clouds wrong, and a lot else as well.
++++++++++++
That about sums up what I read. They say even the scant few models that are closest to observation got the are wrong because they got the clouds wrong. They should have shown more warming. The rest of the models that showed much more warming than observed are also wrong, in that if they were fixed, they would prove observations should be adjusted upwards until they match the warmer than observed models.
What a bunch junk.
davidmhoffer says:
December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Doc1; These people are sick.
Doc2; Let some blood out of them.
Doc1. OK, did that. 20% of them died and the rest are still sick.
Doc2; Well, obviously you didn’t let enough blood out of them.
Doc1; OK, I let more blood out. Now half of them are dead and the rest are still sick.
Doc2; Wow, this disease is worse than I thought. Double the bloodletting.
Doc1; Uhm…there’s this other doctor, and he’s not letting the blood out of his patients, and they’re getting better…
Doc2; The disease is just talking a pause. The symptoms are just hiding. Somewhere that doctors can’t find them. But since no blood was let out of them, it means that they are actually getting sicker. When the diseases stops pausing, it will be even worse. Triple the blood letting.
==============================================
Sounds like Krugman on the “stimulus” too: “The reason it failed is that we didn’t do enough of it. Damn the evidence, full speed ahead!”
Seems to me there’s a certain category of person…
Oh, never mind.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Anthony, I am glad you grabbed that bit of propaganda and made a post of it.
That statement, …”“But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”… in the face of very obvious proof, shows anyone who looks that Dr. Steven Sherwood, the University of New South Wales and The Guardian who is pushing that bit of ‘News’ to the public are nothing but propagandists.
Lysenko would be proud of such disciples.
As the good ship SS CAGW keeps hits iceberg after iceberg, it is hoped the general public, upon learning they have been consistently lied to will have their eyes opened and become more questioning in the future. Trust once abused is hard to earn back and the MSM and university scientists are working hard to lose that trust.
Clive says: @ur momisugly December 31, 2013 at 11:34 am
Classmate of Turney’s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More like a colleague, both of who teach. I wouldn’t consider sending any young people to that University!
Two things which ‘climate scientists’ like to ignore are: i) the geological record, where there are no instances of CAGW, and ii) carbon dioxide levels follow changes in temperature and not vice versa.
However, this brings us back to the subject of CAGW, which is a myth designed to fill the financial troughs of ‘climate scientists’, and AGW which is a small and mildly interesting phenomenon. Man has made an impact on his environment, mostly through the effects of agriculture and irrigation. Probably, rising CO2 levels have also had a very small impact on global temperatures. However, these factors are inconsequential when compared to natural climate cycles, which we can not yet quantify or even fully identify. Why should the reasons for this warm period be any different from the previous four in the Holocene, or for that matter in the Eemian interglacial period 120,000 years ago?
Far too many sceptics confuse AGW with CAGW, while alarmists deliberately muddle them up. AGW is not scary and therefore pays few bills, while the CAGW fantasy is very scary and makes the troughs overflow with funds.
Hence, the reasoning behind this paper, which basically states because current computer models overstate temperatures now, they understate temperatures in the future. In real science, this paper would be awarded a big F, in ‘climate science’ it is just another example of scary forecasting, using dubious and unsubstantiated logic.