Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study published in AAAS “Science Advances” has attempted to resurrect discredited claims of a dangerously high climate sensitivity, by suggesting that climate sensitivity increases as the world warms.
Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be ‘game over’, scientists warn
New research suggests the Earth’s climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an ‘apocalyptic side of bad’ temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime.
It is a vision of a future so apocalyptic that it is hard to even imagine.
But, if leading scientists writing in one of the most respected academic journals are right, planet Earth could be on course for global warming of more than seven degrees Celsius within a lifetime.
And that, according to one of the world’s most renowned climatologists, could be “game over” – particularly given the imminent presence of climate change denier Donald Trump in the White House.
…
In a paper in the journal Science Advances, they said the actual range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations.
…
The abstract of the study;
Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming
Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections.
Read more: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923
The money quote from the study full text;
… This paleodata-based TCRP is now applied to the RCP8.5 forcing scenario until year 2100 CE, following the equation above for deriving an estimated global mean SAT response. The anthropogenic forcing results in a global mean SAT anomaly of 5.86 K by year 2100 with respect to PI values. The uncertainties in S and the ocean’s heat uptake efficiency as discussed above result in a likely range of 4.78 to 7.36 K for the global mean SAT anomaly. Comparing our paleo-based estimate of future warming to the multimodel ensemble mean projections of the CMIP5 (52), we found that our projection results in a slightly higher global mean SAT anomaly. The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/CMIP5 projection under the RCP8.5 scenario results in a global mean SAT increase of 4.84 K for the year 2100 (with respect to PI values). The corresponding multimodel ensemble values range from 3.42 to 6.40 K. …
Read more: Same as above
My question – if a warmer world is more sensitive to CO2, why was the Cretaceous, which ended 66 million years ago, only 4C warmer than today, despite a CO2 level more than 4x higher than today’s CO2 level? If we apply the conclusions of the paper, temperatures in the warm Cretaceous should have been 14c higher than today’s temperatures – an absurdity which should excuse this paper from further serious consideration.
…based on ONE set of calculations. GIGO.
Point!
Eric Worrall,
Perhaps a topic, not by comments but by dialogue in comments, peer to peer would be a nice muse?
I’m uncertain if Anthony can craft the opportunity but it would be refreshing to see a WUWT post with only invited comments – a dialogue between experts invited to chat.
You used Rodin – think about it.
Reprise for Mr. McClure:
EVIDENCE SUGGESTING TEMPERATURE DRIVES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 MORE THAN CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRae
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary
Allen,
“10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.”
Absolutely right, the fubar is, we already know the solution and politics inhibit resolution.
The politics are killing resolution.
Should we rub their nose in their poop?
Perhaps we, world over, need to recommend proper Scientists to advise Trump.
Wonderful game changer, yet who is top of mind?
Who should be an unbiased Science Adviser to the Trump Administration?
Unwinding all the nonsense could take years unless the remarkable soul can crunch the nonsense in a NY minute.
😎
Mr. McClure – a bit of background reading on the subject, dating back to 2002:
WHAT WE KNEW AND WHEN WE WROTE IT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/28/greens-blame-donald-trump-for-crumbling-paris-climate-accord/comment-page-1/#comment-2225581
Best, Allan
Post Script:
I suggest John Christy at UAH would be an excellent candidate as Chief Climate Science Advisor.
I seem to recall that Roy Spencer (also at UAH) said he would not do it.
Post Post Script:
We have known since about 1985 that global warming alarmism was scientifically wrong – a false crisis.
We have known with greater certainty since about 2002 that it was a deliberate fraud.
More for Mr. McClure:
An insight into what really drives global temperature, at least in the short term (multi-decadal).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/31/watch-global-co2-jump-with-el-nino-over-time-then-look-at–the-whys/comment-page-1/#comment-2330519
I have personally verified most-all of the above.
For the longer term, see Dan Pangburn’s work. I have not yet found the time to redo Dan’s spreadsheets, but the concept and execution looks credible.
Best, Allan
Allen,
The first thing I learned was – it’s silly to agree spefics unless the genaralalities are properly defined.
It’s a complete waste of time.
Completely respect your effort yet to what end.
The unproperly generalities are numerous.
What’s the point?
Rodin thinker
Hawking should be in this theater in a moments notice if there was a reason!
Give him One!
Mr. McClure you wrote:
“The first thing I learned was – it’s silly to agree spefics unless the genaralalities are properly defined.”
Suggest you read all the references before commenting further.
As I’ve previously stated, DOE is the muse.
They crunched more data in an attempt AR5 than anyone on Earth. They can unwind the nonsense with insight in seconds.
So, all you science junkies, what is the best way to ensure best solution for those with nothing and preserve the last bastion Republic?
The Idea, The notion, The Belief, The Mechanism. <– odd
You have waaay too much free time. Understandable, at the end of 8 years of Obamanomics, but still …
How about FICO – Faith In, Confirmation Out ?
Pleases be more specific!
So I’m guessing you have a lot of debt you created and are pissed you now have to pay interest on your foolishness?
Transparent apocalyptic anti-scientific fear mongering clap trap. That this faux study was published is an indictment of the peer review process.
Are there any published scientific journals that do not have their heads up the global-warming-by-man butt?
“writing in one of the most respected academic journals ”
Not respected any more after that load of rubbish gets printed by them.
There’s a veritable epidemic of proctocraniosis in academia and socialist science.
Respected journal my AAAS !
The variability of the period of study was dominated by glaciation/deglaciation transitions where we know CO2 is a response to temperatre changes and lags behind it by several hundred years.
What they are doing is trying to pretend that they can reverse the causation and apply the same “sensitivity” ratio.
They study the dog wagging it’s tail and then infer how much the tail can wag the dog.
Anti-science BS.
“Science Advances” my AAAS !
It actually is not an indictment of the process, no more than a corrupt cop is an indictment of the policing process, or a rotten tomato is an indictment of the eating process.
A poor comparison, MP, as journals are not the same thing as precincts, nor are peer reviewers the same thing as poor cops. It IS an indictment of the system since the system is the one that decides the reviewers to use and choose the ones that will give the result they want. The system is dishonest, not the reviewers, who happen also to be dishonest. For your comparison to work, you have to say the precinct doesn’t look for good cops at all, just corrupt cops.
This is not a corrupt single cop. This is a large portion of entire police force on the organized take. Think of Serpico.
“our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections”
It looks like they may be trying to validate the models – of course using more models.
I would suggest that the Library of Congress move Science Advances to the gossip section, right next to the National Enquirer.
Bob Shapiro; Libr’y of Congress…
Tks .. you made my day!
This “news” came out just in time to inflame the “warming” zealots to action going into
Election Day 2016.
The AAAS certainly tried to do their part to arouse the Americans that didn’t go to
Marrakesh for the COP meeting.
I suppose that the climate would be sensitive to an extra galactic gamma ray burst, or a planetoid collision with earth, or a Yellowstone volcano and they each have a 1:1 billion chance of happening within the next 100 years. So… better start laying ground work to prove that climate science can take credit for it. …yawn.
“an extra galactic gamma ray burst, or a planetoid collision with earth, or a Yellowstone volcano and they each have a 1:1 billion chance of happening within the next 100 years”
Major impacts happen every few million years and Yellowstone caldera collapses once or twice per million years, so you underestimate frequency by a factor of more than 1000.
We don’t have good data on gamma ray burst frequencies.
“You underestimate frequency by a factor of more than 1000.”
And yet, those would justify trillions in precaution against a sensitivity above the claimed lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2, and which has a zero probability of ever occurring, will not bother to consider anywhere near as much precaution, if any, against events that have a non zero chance of occurring (another ice age, a super volcano, extinction level impact, ET invasion, etc).
Yet we can’t get sea levels high enough to float a canoe where the ancients and medievals could park entire fleets. These days you’ve still got quite a trudge to Ephesus, Ostia, Deal, the Claudian Invasion landing…even the Pass at Thermopylae.
By the by, was it “climate scientists” moonlighting at the Huffington Post who gave such a resounding victory to Hillary?
I was thinking the same: they must be using the same models as they use to model a warming earth.
I notice that the results are given to 2 decimal places. Wow! That must be a REALLY precise study! I can’t read my thermometer to one decimal place.
Don’t be too hard on him, it’s really hard to think clearly when you have just crapped your pants.
Hey, the “scientific” polling community, with the best and brightest political “scientists,” all the data in the world and the biggest and best computer models, utterly failed to predict an election even one day in advance. What secret sauce are these climate “scientists” using that guarantees their predictions to 2100?
Coupled, non-linear semi-chaotic systems are a bitch, regardless of the time scale or method of operation.
Markopanama …. best quote today!
Well that’s it then. Nothing more to do but live for the moment and party. Who’s going to tell the kiddies they can stay up late and don’t have to eat their greens?
Now the crazy terror campaign begins. All the wilder claims about GW will be resurrected and presented to the media so the public pressurises governments and NGO’s to maintain the mad pursuit of AGW.
Another climate study that disregards the negative feedback from increased humidity. This is what you get when you think the response is exponential and cannot see the clouds appear at their appointed times and conditions to keep the climate stable.
Of course, the utter stupidity of this claim that a “climate denier” will have a large influence on future carbon emissions is a claim that is absurd and stupid. Molten salt nuclear reactors are more carbon free than either solar or wind and economically and functionally so far superior to solar/wind and all forms of fossil fuels, that they will prevail, and it won’t be long in coming. More gross ignorance of energy technologies from the climate alarmists. They foolishly think that their efforts are required to
bring forth a low carbon energy world. What arrogant morons.
I wonder if this article was in the pipeline to be published before the election or if it is a result of the election.
There is a considerable lag time between when a scientific paper is submitted to a journal and when it is published. This isn’t like a newspaper article that can be published the day after it was written. This had to be in the ‘pipeline’ for 6-12 months, so no way is it in reaction to the election results.
I notice that they used the RCP8.5 worst-case scenario from the CMIP5 suite. That is the least likely of scenarios to happen. And then the Guardian chooses the upper bound of the uncertainty to emphasize how scary this is all supposed to be. Hmm … I wonder why they never choose to use the lower bound of the best-case scenario to emphasize that things won’t be that bad. 😉
Publishing an “Everything is Going to be Fine” report doesn’t give a fix to outrage addicts. 😉
Maybe i was planned to the Marocco meeting.
The panic has set in. Take a look at any of the enviro-loon web sites from the last 48 hours. The fear mongering will grow exponentially. My only hope is that it becomes so crazy that they all become severely marginalized.
Of course the panic has set in. And with good reason. Myron Ebell has been appointed as head of Trump’s transition team for the EPA. All these boyos are looking at the end of a multi-billion dollar climate research machine that’s been going on for nigh on 30 years. This will probably ensure that the next IPCC AR will be thin gruel indeed.
The IPCC has already indicated AR6 will simply accept AR5 WG1 conclusions. They know recent work has blown up their high sensitivity numbers.
I predict imminent end of climate scientists
YESSSSSSS! 😀
The sooner the better. Then the discipline can start the long, slow, painful journey back to legitimacy.
It’s our old friend RCP8.5 again.
In a sane world these charlatans would be walking around with sandwich boards and selling pencils from a.cup.
Would those only be organic free trade pencils from sustainable resources? That sanwich board better be 100% recycled too as well as the ink.
/sarc
No, in a sane world they would be standing trial for fraud and theft by fraud.
Every interglacial is different and we don’t know why. I fail to see how comparing a model to something we don’t understand proves anything. link
Hyper sensitivity to polyatomic gases is straight from young earth creationist dogma. With a dash of agnostic myrth.
All fossil carbon was in the atmosphere prior to the oxygen catastrophe. Life forms like stromatalites changed that and turned the oceans blue. Since these life forms still exist, there is no return function.
My question – if a warmer world is more sensitive to CO2, why was the Cretaceous, which ended 66 million years ago, only 4C warmer than today, despite a CO2 level more than 4x higher than today’s CO2 level? The answer is simple, none of that CO2 came from burning COAL!
Unrealistic RCP8.5 scenario: check
Unrealistic positive feedback: check
Loony theory that climate is sensitive to white house occupant: check
Climate apocalypse headline: check
This message was approved by the loony green left (LGL)
Jumping the shark: check.
Oh this IS stunning. Really that there are people thinking that Hillary is the only hope to prevent a looming CAGW really really makes depressed outside the United States as well.
Maybe Trump should do some hard work on PR and forbid shopping bags in DC? And driving. Please forbid^H^Htax to death driving car in DC as well. Hit where it hurts the hardest.
Like all simulations from the alarmists using the ice ages as a model, they purposely under-estimate how much Albedo increased as a result of all that ice. So, then one gets to ascribe all the temperature changes in the ice ages to the drop in CO2.
So, if the ice age temperature changes were driven by CO2, then increased CO2 in the future will cause large increases in temperature over the next century.
The ice-sheet Albedo forcing at the LGM in this study is only -1.0 W/m2; ridiculously low. Nobody has ever used an estimate this low. I mean nobody, not even James Hansen. An objective number would around -11.0 W/m2. Then all the estimates would change by up to 11 times smaller.
http://d3a5ak6v9sb99l.cloudfront.net/content/advances/2/11/e1501923/F2.large.jpg
” So, then one gets to ascribe all the temperature changes in the ice ages to the drop in CO2.”
So now CO2 is cause of glaciation ? WFT?
This is horse-shit. How do they get absurd junk like this published in the first place.
Respected journal my AAAS !
Great summation Bill:
Also in their imagination run wild paleo reconstructions:
http://d3a5ak6v9sb99l.cloudfront.net/content/advances/2/11/e1501923/F3.large.jpg
Where their own reconstructed paleo data over three quarter’s of a million years is scatter plotted, These authors then extend the tight scatter plots to rapidly rising future sensitivity plots where the paleo record never reached.
Another alarmist circle fantasy satisfaction paper.
Models fulfilling confirmation bias.
Research that originated and conducted within researcher assumptions and expectations.
Validation by fakery.
More waste of research funds yielding junk science.
Where’s Griff on this?
Griff: We need our daily laugh … pls. oblige
It was tough on me over the last few years learning that “leading scientist” often meant liar in the climate “sciences.”
We are all with you there Dave.
As best I can figure, the climate system is drawing its current “heat” from the stored heat in the ocean and the stored heat in the mantle, as it is not coming from the Sun, which has slipped into a quiet mode. Therefore the system is using up its stored energy at a prodigious rate as it maintains the climate. As the stored energy diminishes, the planet will slide back into an ice age until the sun decides to output greater energy. We can only hope that it will bottom in a “mini ice age,” and not the real thing.
So if one uses RCP 8.5 and cuts and pastes a Mann hockey stick onto the assumption, and mix in unicorn farts. . . Computer games again.
Watermelons are pitiable creatures.
What are all these self-proclaimed scientists going to do when the US cuts climate research/spending by $22 BILLION annually on January 20th?
Wear bill-boards and sell pencils from cups [see above].
An honest job … for a change.
Hmm – the $22B is a substantial amplification of reality. Be skeptical, but cite facts also. R&D portion of fed budget for this is $2.65B approx. (2014), not $22B (I did find this $22B number, but its inclusive of many other things including green energy tech, tax credits and the like – not for R&D). Also, love this site and these boards, and their endless ad-hominem attack – very professional, although not of the quality of though of say the Federalist Papers. Keep up the good work and be really proud of your endless search for rational sounding reasoning for the hobnoshery of purported good skepticism which starts from the premise of nothing to see here, and obtains many good sounding arguments for why things look better while closing eyes. But to tell the truth, I’d rather have some rational skepticism arguments which don’t end in the conclusion that the reason one is right is because one is more skeptical, nastier, and all other belief is conspiracy. Actually, as a hardened skeptic I’d rather we do amplify more things which are real sounding. I really liked one where people were denying Ocean acidification based on a study of a freshwater lake – it was really cool way to get people who wouldn’t know the difference between sea water and freshwater (and the fact that a lake has inputs that dominate chemistry) to disbelieve all thinking on ocean acidification. Who cares anyhow. Or consider the case of Dr. Muller. http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-deniers-own-study-changes-his-mind.html Of course we probably need to have Koch ask for a refund since the answer didn’t work so well for our mutual skepticism.
I think with the coming huge reductions in grant money being doled out to these people, Anthony will have to dig further to find “studies” like these.
I’m looking forward to a thorough housecleaning throughout the government, but it’s going to be very hard. Civil servant laws preclude large scale purges. Maybe the only way will be for department reorganizations where you can RIF people by requiring a lower headcount after the changes.
The real issue on this front though is the leadership. If you take the politics out and return climate science to science, maybe it will be enough.
Civil servant worker bees can still be useful. Just reassign them to departments where their skills can be useful, perhaps in Alaska or Guam.
The senior executive staff (SAS) can be fired, summarily; If evidence of actual fabrication or data misuse can be proven, their retirements can be denied.
Budgets for specific areas of operation can be reduced or just plain cut. Employees RIFed, (Reduction in Force), are eligible to apply elsewhere in the Federal Government.
The critical action absolutely required for a true reduction in ranks is elimination of work. So long as the expectation for specific work exists, labor forces will expand.
e.g. eliminate all climate explicit work, all CO2 attribution and modeling. If the work does not directly support weather tracking and prediction, it’s toast.
That results in people whose entire daily work schedule and deliverables are gone. Sit and twiddle thumbs time until reassigned, RIFed or voluntarily finds another job. Most will be reassigned.