Full papers plus additional comments from co-author Nic Lewis follow. I have added some relevant diagrams and tables from the report, plus reproduced the foreword by Dr. Judith Curry as well as updated the summary Equilibrium Climate Response Graph originally by Dr. Patrick Michaels to include this new ECS value and range. – Anthony
Models per AR5 Table 9.5. The bar heights show how many models in Table 9.5 exhibit each level of TCR.
NEW REPORT: CLIMATE LESS SENSITIVE TO CO2 THAN MODELS SUGGEST
The GCMs overestimate future warming by 1.7–2 times relative to an estimate
based on the best observational evidence.
Press Release
A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.
The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the recently published Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5.
The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.
This is one of the key findings of the new report Oversensitive: how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming, written by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. Lewis and Crok were both expert reviewers of the IPCC report, and Lewis was an author of two relevant papers cited in it.
In recent years it has become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 most likely being under 2°C for long-term warming, with a best estimate of only 1.3-1.4°C for warming over a seventy year period.
“The observational evidence strongly suggest that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming,” says Nic Lewis.
These lower, observationally-based estimates for both long-term climate sensitivity and the seventy-year response suggest that considerably less global warming and sea level rise is to be expected in the 21st century than most climate model projections currently imply.
“We estimate that on the IPCC’s second highest emissions scenario warming would still be around the international target of 2°C in 2081-2100,” Lewis says.
Full report attached.
Contacts:
Nic Lewis
e: nhlewis@btinternet.com
t: +44 (0)7462 155076.
Marcel Crok
e: marcel.crok@gmail.com
m: +31 6 16236275
Dr Benny Peiser
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
t: 020 70065827
m: 07553 361717
e: benny.peiser@thegwpf.org
registered in England, no 6962749
registered with the Charity Commission, no 1131448
==============================================================
Nic Lewis comments in an email to me:
The report shows that – contrary to the impression given by the Summary for Policymakers – the observational, scientific evidence in the main IPCC AR5 report actually supports much lower estimates of how sensitive the climate system is to greenhouse gas levels, both in the long term and over the remainder of this century, than those exhibited by almost all of the CMIP5 climate models used for virtually all the projections of future climate change. The report develops sound observationally-based projections of future global warming, to the last twenty years of the century, that are 40–50% lower than the IPCC’s average projections on the same emissions scenarios.
I carried out the scientific analysis for the report and co-wrote it with Marcel Crok, a Dutch science writer. The foreword is written by Judith Curry.
==============================================================
Foreword
The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change, and also the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.
The complexity and nuances of the issue of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide are not easily discerned from reading the Summary for Policy Makers of the Assessment Reports undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Further, the more detailed discussion of climate sensitivity in the text of the full Working Group I Reports lacks context or an explanation that is easily understood by anyone not actively reading the
published literature.
This report by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok addresses this gap between the IPCC assessments and the primary scientific literature by providing an overview of the different methods for estimating climate sensitivity and a historical perspective on IPCC’s assessments of climate sensitivity. The report also provides an independent assessment of the different methods for estimating climate sensitivity and a critique of the IPCC AR4 and AR5 assessments of climate sensitivity.
This report emphasizes the point that evidence for low climate sensitivity is piling up. I find this report to be a useful contribution to scientific debate on this topic, as well as an important contribution to the public dialogue and debate on the subject of climate change policy.
I agreed to review this report and write this Foreword since I hold both authors of this report in high regard. I have followed with interest Nic Lewis’ emergence as an independent climate scientist and his success in publishing papers in major peer reviewed journals on the topic of climate sensitivity, and I have endeavored to support and publicize his research. I have interacted with Marcel Crok over the years and appreciate his insightful analyses, most recently as a participant in climatedialogue.org.
The collaboration of these two authors in writing this report has resulted in a technically sound, well-organized and readily comprehensible report on the scientific issues surrounding climate sensitivity and the deliberations of the IPCC on this topic.
While writing this Foreword, I considered the very few options available for publishing a report such as this paper by Lewis and Crok. I am appreciative of the GWPF for publishing and publicizing this report. Public accountability of governmental and intergovernmental climate science and policy analysis is enhanced by independent assessments of their conclusions and arguments.
Judith Curry
Atlanta, GA, USA
February 2014
===============================================================
PDF’s short and long (technical) versions
(Sigh) It’s just not working anymore. The decision makers are still not listening. As pointed out before, despite the commendable research, this is yet another example of a previously tried statistical and scientific approach to convince decision makers that man-made CO2 is not driving climate, and sadly, is wide of the mark. Again, we see an archetypal technical dossier similar to all the other futile attempts used repeatedly during the last decade. Clearly these methods fall on deaf ears and the CAGW believers continually brush reports such as this aside.
It’s time to change tactics to persuade politicians that Carbon Di-Oxide has not dominated the warming of our Earth during the last century. My apologies to all the regular folk on WUWT for repeating what I’ve said before – but to newcomers, the following facts provide far more accessible ammunition to fight our corner on anthropogenic CO2. A simple, concise report needs to be published emphasising . . . .
Fact 1: Excluding CO2 for now, all the other atmospheric gas accounts for 99.96% of the sky.
Fact 2: CO2 represents only 0.040% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere (concentrated in the lower half of the sky – due to CO2 being denser than predominant Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.
Fact 3: Of the minute amount of CO2 up in the sky, 96.775% of it is Naturally Occurring i.e. produced from Photosynthesis, Respiration, Volcanoes & Geysers, Natural Wildfires, Marine Life, Micro-organisms, Plant Decay, Cellular Respiration, Flatulence, Decomposition, Calcification and Natural Fermentation.
Fact 4: This leaves just 3.225% of the total minute amount of CO2 up in the atmosphere being Man-made (anthropogenic) i.e. burning of Oil, Oil Derivatives, Petrol, Kerosene, Paraffin, Diesel, Coal, Natural Gas, Peat, Timber, Crops and Wood & Plant Alcohols.
Fact 5: Apart from any ‘blame’ for weather events caused by burning of fossil fuels, the above 3.225% of total atmospheric Man-made CO2 should also include:
Global Alcoholic Beverage Market: Brewing Industry (Beers & Lagers), Wine & Champagne Production, Beer Dispensing and Distillation (fermentation produces CO2)
Soft Drinks & Beverage Industry: All Carbonated Drinks – Worldwide
(Man-made manufactured CO2 is injected into sparkling wines, cola & lemonade purely as a novelty effect). Decaffeinated Coffee Manufacture (Caffeine is removed from steamed coffee beans as they fall through 100 feet holding vats of pressurised man-made CO2)
Food Manufacture Worldwide: This includes . . . .
The World’s entire Bread Production (‘Air bubbles’ from yeast are pockets of pure man-made CO2).
Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Powder) – Aeration used in snack-food industry, biscuit & cracker manufacture and all cakes & sponges.
Yeast Extract Manufacture.
CO2 Induced agricultural poly-tunnels, greenhouses & germination rooms.
Fermented Soya Bean (for soy sauce, tofu, etc.).
Modified Air Packaging (MAP) CO2 is injected into most food packaging to extend food life & prevent it oxidising.
Dry Ice (used to keep fruit & vegetables fresh and essential for freeze drying).
Refrigeration: All Refrigeration Gas is man-made CO2, All Air-Conditioning
(including for cars, homes, shops, offices & aircraft).
Industrial Processes: This includes . . . .
Coolant Gas (as used in all welding & fabrication)
Lime Kiln Processes (as in all cement manufacture)
Industrial Waste Incinerators
The large-scale burning of rubbish
Sand Blasting Processes (highly pressurised pellet’s of frozen CO2 replaced sand and water in the mid 1970’s. This process is also used by large scale bakeries to clean down equipment more efficiently than just using water & detergents).
Laser Cutting (Fires an arc of particle-charged CO2 to cut all printed circuit boards for electronics, TV’s, computers, car components, etc.)
Propellants: Canisters of highly pressurised man-made manufactured CO2 @ur momisugly 150 psi are used in . . . .
All Fire Extinguishers
Air Bags in Cars
Inflatable Life Jackets
Emergency Exit ‘Slides’ on Aircraft
Stage, Film & Theatre: Dry Ice (used to create smoke effects on set) and CO2 Cannons (as used in stunts for film and TV to propel & topple vehicles).
Other Uses: These include . . . .
Controlling Ph of Water (as used in swimming pools & water purification plants)
All Limescale Removal Products (Sulfamic Acid dissolves limescale and produces bubbles of CO2)
Liver Salts (The fizz is CO2)
Denture Cleaning Products (CO2 bubbles help lift debris from enamel plates)
Anything that humans throw out for Composting (decomposing garden waste, peelings, etc.)
And lastly (pun intended) . . . .
Cremation: Taking one hour to cremate every 7 stone (100 lbs) of body weight, a casket containing a deceased person is placed in an oil or gas fired furnace which generates temperatures of 870oC to 980oC. All human tissue (except bones) evaporates. The remaining bones (3.5% of original body mass) are ground into ashes. The cremation process generates man-made CO2 from the fuel used for heat, the incinerated casket (usually wood) and the combustion of human remains. According to the Office of National Statistics, of the 493,242 registered deaths in the UK in 2010 alone, 360,066 people were cremated (73%).
Conclusion:
With CO2 representing only 0.040% (400 ppm) of the total atmosphere – and that only 3.225% of the total CO2 is Man-made, then . . . .
1. How much man-made CO2 contribution to ‘warming’ could have been produced during the Roman or Medieval warming periods when it was warmer than it is now? Other than burning a few witches, log and peat fires, making a few cakes, a couple of loaves of bread and wine and beer making – not a lot.
2. If CO2 is such a significant contributor to adverse climatic changes, then why are ‘carbon taxes’ not also imposed on the sale of Lemonade, Fire Extinguishers, Refrigerants, Bread and Cremation? After-all, it should be a level playing field.
There is no such thing as man-made CO2 induced warming or CO2 induced climate change. CO2 does not cause extreme weather events. Demonising CO2 is just a smokescreen to protect the vested interest in renewable energy projects. It is a scam.
This is effectively a CO2 alone effect suggesting that hypothetical net positive feedbacks are in fact imaginary. The work I did with Clive Best on changing UK cloud cover came of with 1.3˚C for TCR. Without feedbacks, TCR = ECS (I think).
UK temperatures since 1956 – physical models and interpretation of temperature change
This work was aired on Climate Etc but never on WUWT
(Sigh) It’s just not working anymore. The decision makers are still not listening. As pointed out before, despite the commendable research, this is yet another example of a previously tried statistical and scientific approach to convince decision makers that man-made CO2 is not driving climate, and sadly, is wide of the mark. Again, we see an archetypal technical dossier similar to all the other futile attempts used repeatedly during the last decade. Clearly these methods fall on deaf ears and the CAGW believers continually brush reports such as this aside.
It’s time to change tactics to persuade politicians that Carbon Di-Oxide has not dominated the warming of our Earth during the last century. My apologies to all the regular folk on WUWT for repeating what I’ve said before – but to newcomers, we need facts that provide far more accessible ammunition to fight our corner on anthropogenic CO2. A simple, concise report needs to be published emphasising . . . .
How little CO2 is up there compared to all other atmospheric gas.
How much of it is naturally occuring and what is naturally occuring.
How much of it is man-made.
A compehensive and fascinating list of ALL the ways we make CO2 – proving that if people want to demonise CO2, then they’re only at the foothills if they think it’s just burning fossil fuels.
As regular readers know, I have all the answers to the above, but with AW’s permission, if anyone new to WUWT needs them, then I’ll happily post them on this thread. Let me know.
Meanwhile, solar activity drops significantly.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=15&startmonth=02&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=06&endmonth=03&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
You see, as a decline of solar protons is parallel to the increase in the GCR.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/SatEnv.gif
A response to the Lewis & Crok report has been written by Piers Forster on Climate Lab Book
Ed.
I wonder what the numbers would be if raw unadjusted temperatures and/or only class 1 and 2 station data were used (though I realize globally, it may not be easy to identify class 1/2 stations).
Ivor wins the thread, but honorable mention goes out to all of the doubters of the silly climate sensitivity to co2 crap.
ren says:
March 6, 2014 at 4:30 am
You see, as a decline of solar protons is parallel to the increase in the GCR.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/SatEnv.gif
_________________________
Yes and this will be another good opportunity to observe if cloud formation increases per Svensmark, or if any effect can be differentiated from noise.
REN You’ve got it backwards. The chart shows a decrease in the neutron count which means an increase in solar activity. We are now approaching the peak in solar activity for Cycle 24. See also the recent spike in the sunspot count.
“models suggest” Something misleading about that phrase, though not inaccurate. Do models ever suggest? Don’t they merely project the modeler’s suggestions – no verification value added?
Steven Mosher says: March 5, 2014 at 11:54 pm
….there is no “contension [sic]” that it is a constant….
What? Mosh is chipping someone else on spelling/typos?!!
*gasp* *snort* *chuckle*
markx,
Your comment comes under the heading, Shooting fish in a barrel. ☺
[Just teasing, Mosh. But you were your own straight man there…]
Dr Burns says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Based on the past 17 years, climate sensitivity is zero. Based on the past hundreds of thousands of years, there is still no hard evidence that CO2 has any influence on climate, or that CO2 changes are an effect rather than a cause of climate changes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With his finger, this man has touched the heart of the matter. Why this is not obvious to all mystifies me. These climate sensitivity studies are mere pretense: angels dancing on the heads of pins.
Dr Norman Page says:
REN You’ve got it backwards. The chart shows a decrease in the neutron count which means an increase in solar activity. We are now approaching the peak in solar activity for Cycle 24. See also the recent spike in the sunspot count.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
http://solarmonitor.org/
Just back from the press conference in The Hague, Netherlands, where the Lewis & Crok exposition was presented. I have no idea how many of the press were present and what will be reported. Marcel Crok was to the point, in clear language for the press and Nick Lewis was quite technical, more aimed for the in-depth people… All together a very nice presentation organised by the GWPF and the Dutch “Groene Rekenkamer” (literally “green audit” – see: http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/ only in Dutch).
The main take away message is that even when using the mainstream data, with all their shortcomings, the sensitivity is down to near the low end of the IPCC range (which was last minute reduced in their last report).
My question what the climate sensitivity will do if it gets clear that the real impact of human-made cooling aerosols is (much) lower than is implemented in climate models (which is quite certain) and what if the “pause” lengthens for the next maybe 15 years was answered: then the climate sensitivity will go down further…
What is happening now is that for the first time the mainstream scientists are in the defence: if they can’t explain the pause, they can’t explain the cause. But still there is a long way to go, as the world still counts on the climate models and not on the observations for their policy…
If you compare the solar cycles, it is seen that already the previous 23 was weaker than the previous ones. Is it a coincidence that the temperature is not rising?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Should we take the IPCC seriously. I only ask because they also use non-peer reviewed literature (gray literature) to arrive at some of their assessments.
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/speeches/Busan_speech_DrPachauri.pdf
@John Whitman
>What will the locus of climate sensitivity estimates in the climate science literature be in the year 2020? Will it be 0,5 C +/- 0.5? Will it be 1.0 C +/-1? Will be 1.5 C +/-1.5? Or . . . what number and range do you think it will be?
>I am going with 0.5 C +/-0.5 as the locus of climate sensitivity estimates in the climate science literature in 2020.
Because someone tried to make an issue of whether the number would be positive or negative, as if not knowing indicates some level of ignorance, I will point out that the transient response to CO2 is not the only ‘response’ taking place. The response to a change in CO2 concentration is only one of many changes that happen simultaneously, the most important two being water vapour and cloud cover.
Consider what would happen if CO2 rose to 1% from its present 0.04%. Five doublings from 0.04% might, I say might, increase the temperature by 4 or 5 degrees if the sensitivity is 1 degree. But the power of self-corrections is very strong and the only net effect might be an increase in tropicality towards the poles. Nothing more in terms of “higher temperatures”. Climate history supports this prognostication more than ‘8 degrees per doubling’.
Those of us familiar with the techniques of meta-analysis can readily see what a funnel plot of the various published climate sensitivity results would look like. It would show convergence towards a low sensitivity, and it would show evidence of publication bias for high sensitivity.
Why bother with models? It is quite certain that sensitivity is overestimated. It is actually zero because doubling carbon dioxide does not warm the world since we are living under a hiatus-pause of warming and have been for the last 17 years. The real question that those who wish to question it is how come that this pause started only 17 years ago. First, 17 years is already two thirds of the time that IPCC has existed but still refuses to acknowledge observed facts. You could also point out that there was earlier warming which they still claim was greenhouse warming. But laws of nature don’t work like that. If a theory is wrong now it did not suddenly become wrong, it was always wrong. Ockham’s razor tells us that those earlier warmings during the first third of IPCC existence are simply misinterpretations of natural warming by over-eager “climate” scientists, indoctrinated by Hansen to believe in the imaginary enhanced greenhouse effect that does not exist.
If the Sun will cause further cooling, the CO2 will start to disappear in the cool oceans, as it happens during the winters in cold waters of.
ren says:
March 6, 2014 at 10:02 am
If the Sun will cause further cooling, the CO2 will start to disappear in the cool oceans, as it happens during the winters in cold waters of.
CO2 already disappears in the oceans, but humans emit more CO2 than the oceans do absorb. Cooling may help, but one need a continuous drop of 0.5 K/year to keep pace with human emissions…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
CO2 already disappears in the oceans, but humans emit more CO2 than the oceans do absorb. Cooling may help, but one need a continuous drop of 0.5 K/year to keep pace with human emissions…
This shows that confuses the cause with the effect. CO2 does not affect the global temperature of of at most on the ocean acidification.