Guest essay by Viv Forbes
Climate alarmists claim incessantly that all bad weather is caused by man’s use of hydro-carbon fuels – oil, gas and coal.
They insist that man-made carbon dioxide is the trump card in the climate game. Their computerised models of doom assume ever-rising levels of carbon dioxide which will trump all natural climate controllers.
Unfortunately for their credibility, since at least the year 2000 global temperatures have trended level despite significant increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The sun is the primary source of almost all of Earth’s heat. It is becoming increasingly clear that this gigantic heat generator, with its varying cycles and emissions, is an Ace in the climate game.
Then there are the massive oceans, whose vast heat capacity and ever-changing currents and oscillations also regularly trump the steady but tiny influence from man’s industry.
In order to explain the failure of their carbon-centric forecasts, the alarmists have thrown several other wild cards into the climate game. These include heat losses into the deep oceans and unexpected variations in earth’s cover of ice, snow, soot, particulates and volcanic dust.
Finally, they have created their own friendly climate Joker – data manipulation. They deal this card from the bottom of the pack onto the climate table to create artificial warming trends and heat wave “records” on demand.
Obviously there are too many Jokers and Wild Cards in the climate game for one simple carbon-centric theory to win a forecasting game, except by cheating or chance.
This is why warmists have not won a “Forecast-the-Warming” game for at least 15 years.
Further Reading
Bogus data in Australian Temperature Records:
Brisbane temperature benchmarks change daily:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/how-hot-is-brisbane-with-new-improved-daily-benchmarks/
How can we say that humans are not the cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere when since the Industrial Revolution, our CO2 levels have done nothing but increased? As humans, we have the potential to emit nearly 29 gigatones of CO2 per year. While CO2 that is emitted from humans may not be more than what oceans and plants emit,the CO2 from humans cannot be contained the Carbon Cycle. The CO2 emitted from plants and oceans is cycled back into these locations; whereas from humans….it just stays in the atmosphere because the land and ocean cannot absorb any more.
Therefore we cannot definitely say that the sun is the “Ace” in the game when humans have caused the increase in CO2.
Not to mention, clear un-manipulated data shows us that while temperature has gone up in recent years, solar activity has gone down.
Not only has solar climate forcing slightly decreased as you say, the magnitude of solar climate forcing is quite small compared to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Good luck getting your restatement of basic science accepted on this forum.
“the CO2 from humans cannot be contained the Carbon Cycle.” >Ah It’s the wrong kind of CO2!
It has nothing to do with it being the “wrong kind of CO2.” My point here is that the CO2 nature emits from the ocean and land is then reabsorbed back into these locations. The CO2 emitted from nature is anywhere from 220 (Land) to 332 (ocean) gigatonnes per year. While this is more than the 29 gigatonnes that humans emit, the problem is that this CO2 we emit is not reabsorbed into nature like the CO2 the ocean and land emits. The natural balance is upset when only about 40% of the CO2 we emit can be absorbed, the rest stays in the atmosphere.
Water vapor runs the climate, not CO2. Whatever miniscule heating man caused CO2/GHGs cause, water vapor just soaks it up. IPCC says man caused GHGs added less than 3 W/sq m between 1750 and 2011. Compare that to the 340 W/sq m at the top of atmosphere. CO2 is a bee fart in a water vapor hurricane.
While water vapor is a dominant greenhouse gas, it actually creates a positive feedback loop that amplifies the changes in temperature caused by CO2. The water vapor in our atmosphere does not increase drastically like the CO2 in our atmosphere has been doing for years. As CO2 increases, the water vapor that has remained constant just furthers the temperature increase causing many to think that global warming is caused solely by water vapor. We could only rule out CO2 as the main contributor to global warming if it had not increased so much since the Industrial Revolution and wasn’t continuing to increase today.
“Without the inclusion of clouds, water vapor alone contributes 36% to 70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. When water vapor and clouds are considered together, the contribution is 66% to 85%.” Wiki
Water vapor concentration is 2,500 ppm compared to CO2’s 400. It’s not “a” dominant GHG it’s “the” dominant GHG. Water vapor doesn’t have to change drastically. Because of the enormous latent heat of evaporation/condensation a little bit goes a long way.
IPCC AR5
7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual short¬wave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010).
!!!!!The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling!!!!
(emphasis mine)
Anthropogenic GHGs add less than 3 W/m2. CRE cooling is six times as much as GHG warming.
Water vapor runs the climate? I don’t think so, and neither does any scientist, or any engineer who understands that water vapor in the atmosphere is a function, almost entirely, of temperature…so the total average water vapor content Is roughly constant when averaged over time and the globe. So the large contribution of water vapor to the Greenhouse effect is roughly constant…whereas CO2’s contribution, the 2nd largest, is increasing each year, adding to the greenhouse effect., and thus is the largest contributor to the industrial eras warming of the Climate.
“Without the inclusion of clouds, water vapor alone contributes 36% to 70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. When water vapor and clouds are considered together, the contribution is 66% to 85%.” Wiki
Water vapor is 2,500 ppm, CO2 400 ppm.
The latent heat of evaporation and condensation by water vapor absorbs/releases heat a thousand times more effectively than CO2.
This BSME & PE with 35 years in energy knows so.
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. They are uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. Like the 3” drought that hit Phoenix. They are uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. They are uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. They are uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 17 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Barring some serious flaw in science or method, Miatello’s paper should serve as the death certificate for AGW/CCC.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
http://www.climatism.net/facts-about-global-warming/
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. They are uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. Like the 3” drought that hit Phoenix. They are uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. They are uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. They are uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 17 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Barring some serious flaw in science or method, Miatello’s paper should serve as the death certificate for AGW/CCC.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
http://www.climatism.net/facts-about-global-warming/
Is my reply to warrenlb in moderation? Lost? Don’t want to repeat it.
Now for something completely different.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/05/05/co2h2o/
This analysis shows that
1. The effect of even small increases in water vapor content of the atmosphere in the tropics has a much larger effect on the downwelling fluxes, than does a significant increase of the CO2 concentrations. Thus, the monitoring of multi-decadal water vapor trends in the tropics should be a high priority. While the increase in CO2 concentrations, and resulting increase in downwelling longwave flux can result in surface ocean warming, and thus increase evaporation into the atmosphere, it is the atmospheric water vapor signal that should be monitored for long term trends, as it is the dominant greenhouse gas that has the greater climate response.
2. The fractional contribution of the effect of added CO2, relative to a 5% increase of water vapor in the subarctic winter is significantly larger than in the tropical sounding. This is because the subarctic sounding is quite dry. An increase in absolute terms of water vapor similar to a 5% increase in the tropical sounding would, however, dominate the increase of downwelling longwave fluxes. This again indicates that the assessment of long term water vapor atmospheric concentrations needs to be a climate science priority.
Your voluminous posts miss the point entirely. Water vapor accounts for the largest portion of the 60F elevation of earth’s temp above that which it would be without atmosphere (about 0F). But that portion is constant. The smaller greenhouse portion is rising.. Assessment of w,ate vapor, as you state, is a vital art of overall understanding of the climate, but that research confirms its not the reason or increasing global temperatures.
warrenlb
As usual, your post only serves to demonstrate your ignorance and bias.
Pielke is assessing the existing atmosphere in which the absorbtion of IR by CO2 is in the 15 micron and 4 micron bands. These bands (especially the 15 micron) are so near to saturation in the existing atmosphere that they only increase absorbtion by band broadening.
Water vapour in the existing atmosphere also absorbs in the 15 micron and 4 micron bands so its absorbtion of IR reduces any absorbtion possible by CO2 and – very importantly – water vapour also absorbs over almost all the IR spectrum with most IR wavelengths NOT nearly saturated.
For these reasons, as Pielke says,
“The effect of even small increases in water vapor content of the atmosphere in the tropics has a much larger effect on the downwelling fluxes, than does a significant increase of the CO2 concentrations.”
and
“… the subarctic sounding is quite dry. An increase in absolute terms of water vapor similar to a 5% increase in the tropical sounding would, however, dominate the increase of downwelling longwave fluxes.”
Pielke argues for monitoring of atmospheric water vapour and your response is to say to not ‘look behind the curtain’.
Richard
richardscourtney.
I say (to nickreality65): “Assessment of water vapor, as you state, is a vital art of overall understanding of the climate, but that research confirms its not the reason for increasing global temperatures.”
You say (to me): “your response is to say to not ‘look behind the curtain’.
So are you claiming that I don’t want to look at water vapor, even though I said research IS looking at water vapor’s role?
And are you claiming, in contradiction to the science, that water vapor, not CO2, is the largest contributor to the RISE in global temperatures since 1950?
Water vapor is not added to the atmosphere like CO2, it is a constant function of temperature like warrenlb mentions. CO2 is added to the atmosphere constantly each year and its addition is amplified by water vapor, causing temperatures to rise even more. So while you want to believe that water vapor is the reason behind climate change, its actually CO2 that essentially pushing people to believe water vapor is the problem. CO2 is the culprit in all of this and this is backed by 96% of scientists world wide.
96% is total bunk!
To nickreality65 – many people do not want to believe we are the issue because they focus on the information they want to believe. Many deniers do not want to look at the actual peer reviewed research that goes against what they believed for so long. Between 1991 and 2012, nearly 14,000 scientific peer reviewed journals were reviewed, and only 24 did not believe in global warming or did not believe we were the problem. The reasons these 24 papers presented against global warming were all further debunked.
The popular 96% consensus stems from four aged surveys: Doran & Zimmerman, Anderregg, Oreskes, and Cook. Poorly written with ambiguous questions, badly executed, and thoroughly cherry picked. Google such.
The 96% consensus boils down to this: A selection of self-proclaimed “climate” scientists (self-important Chicken Little blowhards) actively researching and publishing in their field (insert getting paid) coauthoring and pal reviewing each other’s repetitious, derivative, yet voluminous works and numbering fewer than 100.
Some consensus.
Part One: Heating the earth
A popular global heat balance shows 340 W/m2 incoming radiative flux at the top of atmosphere. A watt is a power unit, energy over time, equaling 3.41 Btu of energy/heat/work per hour. Over a 24 hour period the earth’s ToA semi-spherical surface would collect 7.13E18 Btu of energy.
Dry air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen with a heat capacity of about 0.24 Btu/lb-F. For dry air to absorb 7.13E18 Btu would require a temperature increase of about 2.63 F. Over 24 hours.
Water vapor evaporates/absorbs, condenses/releases, energy/heat at about 1,000 Btu/lb. For atmospheric water vapor to absorb 7.13E18 Btu through evaporation would require an amount equal to 25.5% of the current atmospheric water vapor content, i.e. more clouds, more albedo, more reflection, a self-correcting thermostat. That’s the entire ToA!
Part Two: IPCC RCPs
IPCC AR5 states that between the years 1750 and 2011 man generated GHGs increased the RF by less than 3 W/m2. (Is that the downwelling?) Contrast that figure with the ToA.
IPCC bases its various computer model predictions on four cases:
Case………….…CO2 ………….……Radiative……Dry air, ΔF………..Increase in atmospheric
………………….Concentration……..Forcing………………………………water vapor content
RCP 2.6…………421 ppm CO2……..3.0 W/m2………0.02……………..……….0.2%
RCP 4.5…………538 ppm CO2……..4.5 W/m2………0.03………………………0.3%
RCP 6.0…………670 ppm CO2……..6.0 W/m2………0.05………………………0.4%
RCP 8.5…………936 ppm CO2……..8.5 W/m2………0.07………………………0.6%
It’s the water vapor thermostat that controls the greenhouse, not CO2. It’s the water vapor thermostat that controls the simplistic blanket analogy as well. The hiatus heat went into a few more clouds, not the ocean.
Yes, the IPCC is consistent with what I said –Water vapor is responsible for the substantial (60F) elevation of earth’s temperature above its thermal equilibrium of 0F without atmosphere. And CO2 is driving that degree of elevation higher, and as Melissa b 206 says:
“While water vapor is a dominant greenhouse gas, it actually creates a positive feedback loop that amplifies the changes in temperature caused by CO2. The water vapor in our atmosphere does not increase drastically like the CO2 in our atmosphere has been doing for years. As CO2 increases, the water vapor that has remained constant just furthers the temperature increase causing many to think that global warming is caused solely by water vapor. We could only rule out CO2 as the main contributor to global warming if it had not increased so much since the Industrial Revolution and wasn’t continuing to increase today”
All consistent with the IPCC, and established science.
Sensible heating of water vapor due to CO2 “downwelling” radiation exhibits a relatively trivial positive feedback.
Evaporation of water vapor at a constant temperature, absorbing heat from the air, is a negative feed back by a factor of 1,000. That’s how evaporative coolers work, that water soaked canvas water bag, the damp sweat band around your forehead, the sweat on your body.
Water vapor is an extremely effective heat modulating thermostat. But water vapor is not caused nor cured by man and therefore outside IPCC’s mandate and consideration.
“And are you claiming, in contradiction to the science, that water vapor, not CO2, is the largest contributor to the RISE in global temperatures since 1950?”
Evaporating water absorbs heat without increasing the temperature and explains the 20 year pause. CO2’s radiative forcing is trivial in comparison. IPCC AR5 TS6 even admits uncertainty about its magnitude. The rise since 1950 was from some other source than CO2, e.g. ocean floor geothermal heat flux or simply natural variability, noise in the data.
“…in contradiction to the science…”
Is this your own observation and research or simply one of the plethora of talking points on the clipboard they gave you to hang in your cubicle. I guess $7.50 an hour in the internet version of a call center beats selling plasma.
As someone else noted, on the internet nobody can tell whether you are a talking dog, 12 year old in a basement, or a trained monkey.
Schmidt et al. (2010) analysed how individual components of the atmosphere contribute to the total greenhouse effect. They estimated that water vapor accounts for about 50% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the minor greenhouse gases and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%. The study is based on the 1980 atmosphere as a reference.
So, some questions for you:
1) How much do you say this effect from water vapor is increasing over time? Why is it increasing? Your own words, please. .
2) How much has atmospheric CO2 increased since 1750? Why is it increasing?
1) The GHE w/o the latent heat of water vapor, only the sensible heat from “downwelling.” Sensible heat has a positive feedback (makes the atmosphere hotter), latent heat a negative feedback (makes the atmosphere cooler) orders of magnitude larger.
2) a) See WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL B.5 and C. I’s in there somewhere. b) natural variability.
The sea ice/sheets/caps on Antarctica/the Arctic/Greenland/Iceland are shrinking/growing yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
Polar bears and penguins are endangered/having a hard time/pretty much as usual yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
The sea levels are rising, land is subsiding yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
The global temperatures are rising/falling/flat lining based on satellite/tropospheric/sea surface/land surface with or without UHI/TOB/homogenization/adjustments/bald faced lying yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
Nothing but sound and fury, tales told by people missing the point, signifying nothing. The only meaningful question is what does CO2 have to do with any of this? How are these contentious topics connected to CO2?
IPCC’s dire predictions for the earth’s climate are based entirely on computer models, models which have yet to match reality. The projections began with a 4 C increase by 2100 which has since been adjusted down to 1.5 C.
The heated discussions mentioned above attempt to retroactively validate or refute those models, models driven by the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 and other GHGs. IPCC AR5 TS.6 says that the magnitude of the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 “…remains uncertain.” (Google “Climate Change in 12 Minutes.”) Implying that IPCC was also uncertain in AR4, 3, 2, 1.
IPCC is not uncertain about one issue, though, redistribution of wealth and energy from developed countries to the underdeveloped ones to achieve IPCC’s goal of all countries enjoying above average standards of living.
Besides, the greatest threat to mankind isn’t CO2, it’s hot lead.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
@nickreality: My posts questions were directed to you. Care to try to answer?
The sun becoming hotter is not the cause for global warming. Evidence shows that in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
1) Global warming has stalled for nearly 20 years.
2) The time integral of TSI matters more than TSI for a single year, decade or multidecadal interval.
3) TSI is not the metric that matters most. Its spectral composition & magnetic flux are more important for climate.
1b) In the least cooked books (RSS & maybe balloon data, but haven’t checked lately), the globe is already cooling. Further decline in solar activity is likely to accelerate this trend.
Global warming has not stalled. In terms of climate, 20 years is a relatively short period of time. Climate is a long term thing, not a short term thing. While we can say that 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record globally, that is not looking at the long term. To do so, we have to look at Oceans, that contain 90% of the heat that comes from global warming. Data shows us that ocean temperatures are still rising today. Also, global warming cannot “Stall” when CO2 is still being released into the atmosphere.
Melissa,
Yes it has stopped warming this century,in complete contradiction to the IPCC’s “best estimate”modeling projection.:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. for at least a .20C per decade warming rate for the first two decades:”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
The official temperature data shows about ZERO after 13 plus years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
As Melissa correctly says, the build up of thermal energy in the Earth’s system hasn’t stalled –cannot stall unless GHGs are by some miracle removed from the atmosphere– and they continue to increase every year. Less and less IR escapes Earth as GHGs build up in the atmosphere; it goes wherever the laws of physics direct it –into the oceans mostly (90+%) and 3 % into the atmosphere.
Weather cycles can trump the impact of that 3% to the atmosphere for decades — and the oceans can absorb more for decades — the research points to both effects for the last 18 years. (And the models aren’t capable of an 18 year projection, nor do the modelers claim so –in spite of your strawman argument).
The heat energy being absorbed by the planetary system will eventually be seen in the Climate –unless you think the oceans have infinite heat capacity. There’s no where else for it to go but into water, land, and the atmosphere.
Global warning has not stalled. Evidence show that over the past couple years earth’s average temperature continues to rise. Not just that but cO2 numbers have also risen therefore enhancing global warming.
What alternate universe do you live in.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/state-of-the-climate-scam-report/
Based on the last few posts from Melissa, Sheldon, and myself, and more importantly on the science, it appears you have missed the point about thermal energy buildup in the Earth’s system –the driver of long term climate change.
Yes, with zero warming trend for this century as well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
RealClimate admits that CO2 simply doesn’t warm the ocean waters.which most skeptics long understood.
RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most
“According to the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 levels allegedly increases forcing by 3.7 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere and by only about 1 Wm-2 at the surface. The paper cited by RealClimate is measuring the effect of longwave forcing at the surface, therefore we assume 1 Wm-2 from doubled CO2 at the surface. Using the slope of the relationship, 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1, we find that doubling of CO2 concentrations could only reduce the temperature gradient 0.002*1 = 0.002ºC.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
It is really Sun> Ocean> Atmosphere> Space, cycle.
Glad to see you’re reading and quoting Realclimate! It’s a Real Science site. But it’s your interpretation that’s wrong…..The temp rise in the oceans is small because the specific heat of water is high,not because the amount of heat energy being absorbed is small…rather THAT is enormous—The thermal energy being absorbed by oceans is equal to 4 Hiroshima sized atomic explosions per second, continuously, over the last 18 years. Enormous amounts of heat that ultimately must be exchanged to the atmosphere.
And real climate accepts the consensus finding of Science for climate sensitivity of the atmosphere…1.5C to 4.5C , for a doubling of CO2. Same as the IPCC.
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
Between 1750 and 2011 the global CO2 balance increased 240 ± 10 PgC/yr . Fossil fuels & cement production were responsible for 7.8 PgC/y or 3.25%. (Peta gram = E15 g = Giga Tonne E9 Tonne. E3 g = kg E3 kg = Tonne)
Anthropogenic sources of CO2 are currently adding about 2 ppm/y to the atmosphere’s current 400 ppm.
IPCC AR5’s worst, worst, worst case model RCP 8.5, 985 ppm, 8.5 W/m2.
At the current rate it will take about 300 years to reach that concentration.
RCP 8.5 predicts 1.5 to 6.6 meters of sea level rise – in the year 2500.
Coincidence? I think not!
“At the current rate (2 ppm/y) it will take about 300 years to reach that concentration (RCP 8.5)”
Are you saying the IPCC uses ‘current rate’ of CO2 increase for its ‘worse case projection”? Doesn’t sound right. Have you checked that assumption?
More importantly, what is your point, please?
And how does your post relate to the point of my post re: Heat addition to the oceans or Climate Sensitivity of 1.5C to 4.5C?
IPCC bases its various computer model predictions on four cases:
Case………….…CO2 ………….……Radiative……Dry air, ΔF………..Increase in atmospheric
………………….Concentration……..Forcing………………………………water vapor content
RCP 2.6…………421 ppm CO2……..3.0 W/m2………0.02……………..……….0.2% (No change from today, not much happens)
RCP 4.5…………538 ppm CO2……..4.5 W/m2………0.03………………………0.3%
RCP 6.0…………670 ppm CO2……..6.0 W/m2………0.05………………………0.4%
RCP 8.5…………936 ppm CO2……..8.5 W/m2………0.07………………………0.6% (Hundreds of years before bad things happen)
A almost undetectable change in water vapor content will absorb the additional heat with no change in temperature.
Heat evaporates from the ocean a lot faster than “downwelling” radiation heat it up.
It’s obvious from the pause that climate sensitivity is not what IPCC says they don’t know. AR4 was 4 C, AR 5 was 1.5 C, AR 6 will be “Never mind!”
IPCC AR5 TS.6 (They haven’t got a clue!!!)
Paleoclimate reconstructions and Earth System Models indicate
that there is a positive feedback between climate and the carbon
cycle, but
“!!!!confidence remains low in the strength of this feedback,!!!”
particularly for the land. {6.4}
The simulation of clouds in AOGCMs has shown modest improvement
since AR4; however, it remains challenging. (Well, duh!) {7.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1,
9.7.2}
• Observational uncertainties for climate variables other than temperature,
uncertainties in forcings such as aerosols, and limits in
process understanding continue to hamper attribution of changes
in many aspects of the climate system. {10.1, 10.3, 10.7}
• Changes in the water cycle remain less reliably modelled in both
their changes and their internal variability, limiting confidence in
attribution assessments. (Duh!) Observational uncertainties and the large
effect of internal variability on observed precipitation also precludes
a more confident assessment of the causes of precipitation
changes. (& more Duh!) {2.5.1, 2.5.4, 10.3.2}
You’ve simply posted IPCC statements about uncertainties in the Science that are well known to the Climate researchers whose work the IPCC is summarizing. And you note that the IPCC updated the lower bound of Climate Sensitivity from 2.0 to 1C, as learned from recent research.
Once again, what is your point?
Typo Correction: Updated Climate Sensitivity from 2.0C to 1.5C. (not 1C)