Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

[Kilbourne]

Hey Lynn:

I think it might be best to step back away from various details and side isues, and get the big picture of the basics of AGW (which I came to understand well before it became an emotion-ladened issue for people on all sides of the isssue):

1. 
   *]The greenhouse effect has been known about for over 100 years. It is a matter of the laws of physics (you can learn about this in basic books on the subject), and also the finding that the earth was warmer than it should have been without the GH gases and effect. Also, CO2 has been found to be higher during periods of warming, including the present situation. If you don’t accept these facts, then don’t read any further.

1. 
   If you want a history from a “warmist” perspective of our CO2 came under suspicion for causing GW, see Spencer Weart’s book (something like the Discover of GW–don’t remember the exact title). Naomi Oreskes, in some of her online slide shows gives a capsule summary. Weart indeed demonstrates that we’ve known about the GH effect for some time. And most people agree increasing CO2 should contribute some warming. The question, however, is how much. The big bone of contention is climate sensitivity, and this issue remains to this day, despite the best efforts of the climate science establishment and their willing accomplices in the media and government, remains a mighty bone of contention.
   

   *]Another fact that is indisputable is that humans through the industrial age have been pumping a lot of GHGs into the atmosphere, and the ppm is now some 390, which is a lot higher than it has been in a long time (and even though in the way distant past CO2 was much higher at times, the sun emitted less irradiation then). Again if you don’t accept these facts, then don’t read further.

   Tis true that hooman beans pump out a lot of CO2 and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. Tis not true that hooman beans are responsible for all of the increase in CO2. It is controverted whether present levels are a lot higher than even 150 years ago.
   

   *]The climate has warmed about 1.3°F (0.7ºC) in the past 100 years – see www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how…last-100-years . If you don’t accept this then…

   Not controversial. But I will disagree mightily if you claim, as Hansen, Jones etal often do, that 1998 or 2010 or whatever are the hottest year of the 20th century. This is nothing but propaganda based on their ideology-driven adjusting of the records. These guys are bad scientists. Don’t believe a word they say, not even if they try and give you the time of day.
   

   ]Greater heat leads to greater evaporation (that’s where the H2O “feedback” comes in – see below), desiccating land and plants. Greater heat also causes greater risk of heat stroke and death. They attribute about half the 30,000 or so European heat deaths of 2003 to global warming, esp due to night temps (minimum diurnal temps) rising faster than maximum diurnal temps (which is another signal of the increasing GH effect); people exposed to great heat during the day need cool nights to recouperate. Seems that is also true for plants – see pnas.org/content/107/33/14562.full.pdf+html
   *]Greater heat also causes greater droughts and greater deluges and floods (sometimes even during droughts). It also melts ice & snow, which will eventually rise the sea-levels, and lead to various water problems.

   Greater moisture in the atmosphere should lead to more precipitation, not drought. Actually world-wide drought is associated with the glacial periods.
   
   Tis not as simple as you make it out to be.
   
   You should read Bjorn Lomborg (kind of a “luke-warmer”) on the subject of heat deaths. Cold is actually much more deadly.
   

   *]Heat energy can also turn into kinetic energy under certain weather conditions spawning more intense storms, hurricanes, and winds. It can also contribute to increased risk of wildfires (from the greater plant/land desiccation & winds).
   *]Warming regional climates can allow disease vectors to spread into new territories.

   Re more intense storms and hurricanes, you should read about the tale of Chris Landsea, which also illustrates how corrupt the IPCC is. Landsea is a real expert who served on the IPCC as a lead author. Landsea resigned after IPCC fellow Kevin Trenbearth, eager to make headlines, made unsupportable public statements about global warming impacting hurricanes. In his resignation letter Landsea said, “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”
   
   Re disease vectors spreading, you should check into the tale of Paul Reiter, a disease expert who had a similar experience with the IPCC.
   

   It’s your prerogative not to accept this and to ignore the popes and bishops who have called us to mitigate AGW. You don’t have to do anything, except (as my 5th grade teacher used to tell us) pay taxes and die

   Given the corrupt state of the science, a prudent world will indeed do nothing.
   

   My prayers are with you…

   And also with you…er… An with your spirit!
   

   ---

 

[kimmielittle]

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

March 22, 2012: A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”

**“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” **

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

My Bold:

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

** FOR Calliso who seems to think he has the answers**

Did I just hear NASA saying that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more it acts as a negative feedback to the greenhouse effect?

I also would like to see an explanation of why CO2 in the upper atmosphere supposedly acts differently (95% radiatied back out) than CO2 in the lower troposphere (uniform omni-directional radiation).

“For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.”

How come the CO2 and NO ** didn’t re-radiate half of the energy downwards?**

Then Maybe explain:

In every one of the last six cycles (that is 12 increases/decreases) the warming has been
during periods of ** low CO2 and the cooling has been during periods of high CO2.**

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Kimmie,

The Message: You don’t give a pickle for the environment / good stewardship if you don’t believe in the Post-normal Science around AGW.

It does seem that the climate science establishment has indeed gone “post-normal”. Objectivity has gone out the window. Scientist/Activists are predominant. Even scientists, in their public discourse, divide the world in terms of believers and unbelievers, as if their cherished beliefs are unassailable dogma and skeptics are heretics. Very disheartening but also very revealing.

I see it as part an parcel of the rise of the dictatorship of relativism decried by JPII. What happened to our concern for the Truth of the Matter?

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Kimmie,

Regarding planting trees. It may be that I am hedging my bets a little bit (I imagine trees are pretty good CO2 extractors), but it is also true that I inherited my father’s lust for trees and desire to add more shade to the Dakotas’ mostly treeless plains.

 

[kimmielittle]

As for no hard evidence for AGW how much have you really looked into this and have you kept an open mind?

Ha ha ha ha…you talk of “open mind” and send them to meat market links…where anything / anyone expressing an “open mind” is censored and ridiculed.

nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/secret-skepticalscience/

foia2011.org/index.php?id=3334

Here we have a press release in 1999 (email 3384) from Environmental Media Services (Fenton Communications, operator of RealClimate.org) sent on behalf of the WWF to help bolster the Kyoto Protocol.

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/tying-wwf-uea-fenton-communications-and-commissioned-research-all-together/

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi Kimmie,

It does seem that the climate science establishment has indeed gone “post-normal”. Objectivity has gone out the window. Scientist/Activists are predominant. Even scientists, in their public discourse, divide the world in terms of believers and unbelievers, as if their cherished beliefs are unassailable dogma and skeptics are heretics. Very disheartening but also very revealing.

I see it as part an parcel of the rise of the dictatorship of relativism decried by JPII. What happened to our concern for the Truth of the Matter?

Hiyas

The important thing is you MUST believe them…NO Scientific Truths needed.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi Kimmie,

Regarding planting trees. It may be that I am hedging my bets a little bit (I imagine trees are pretty good CO2 extractors), but it is also true that I inherited my father’s lust for trees and desire to add more shade to the Dakotas’ mostly treeless plains.

I come from a LONG line of Naturalist / Biologists / Botanists

My Grandpa did a lot of research in the High Sierra Nevadas and the Redwoods. He studied tree rings before Mr Mann tried counting tree rings.

Shade, Soil Erosion benefits, Soil Nutrients, Wind Breaks, CO2 - Oxygen benefits…Just plain Good Stewardship / Conservation Practices.

Give me someone who actually lives “close to the land” any day…They do it for the right reasons.

 

[lynnvinc]

Greater moisture in the atmosphere should lead to more precipitation, not drought.

That’s true & known – GW leads to greater precipitation (but also greater evaporation), and the precip unfortunately comes down in heavier doses, causing greater flood risk. I know it sounds crazy, but some regions are projected to experience greater drought risk, and others greater flood risk, and some areas experiencing greater drought risk can also have greater flood risk, as well…in a world of increasingly overall greater precipitation.

Climate scientists are getting better and better at making regional projections. I think it is not wise to slander those who are working very very hard on this issue. It is very complex, with lots of variables. It is hard to tell exactly which locales will be experiencing drought, floods, and droughts with floods, but they are getting better at it.

Here is a map of precip anomalies in the U.S., just to give an idea:

Note that in some of the drought areas, there have been some floods (as in some parts of Texas), even during the droughts. There should be some better maps that show the currrent 30 year average v. the previous (baseline) 30 or more years average.

Here is a link to another interesting map about climatic shifts in the start date of spring in the U.S. (last 30 yr period averages compared with the previous 30 year period):
climatecentral.org/news/State-by-State-Look-at-How-Early-Spring-Has-Arrived?utm-source=feedburner&utm-medium=feed&utm-campaign=Feed%3A+climatecentral%2FdjOO+Climate+Central±+Full+Feed

 

[lynnvinc]

You should read Bjorn Lomborg (kind of a “luke-warmer”) on the subject of heat deaths. Cold is actually much more deadly.

I’m not sure of the stats, and it would depend on the area, I suppose. Even if this is correct for now, it will eventually get so hot that this may well reverse, with heat deaths superseding cold deaths.

Re more intense storms and hurricanes, you should read about the tale of Chris Landsea, which also illustrates how corrupt the IPCC is. Landsea is a real expert who served on the IPCC as a lead author. Landsea resigned after IPCC fellow Kevin Trenbearth, eager to make headlines, made unsupportable public statements about global warming impacting hurricanes. In his resignation letter Landsea said, “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”

We recently had a NOAA - NWS person specializing on hurricanes give a talk. He took a position between Landsea and Trenbearth.

It may be that the small amount of warming has not yet caused increased hurricane intensity (tho some studies suggest that it has), even though the sea-surface temps have warmed about .5C, and warming seas are a factor (among several) in whether a hurricane can develop. The larger picture is that with a greater heat imbalance, esp in future years when it gets worse, there is greater risk for conditions that lead to heat energy transforming into kinetic energy. There might be other factors also increasing that actually counteract hurricane development…like wind-shear. However, as our speaker pointed out, there are “windows” in which weather events happen that are outside the expected and normal pattern…like the great rains we were having several weeks in the RGV in the midst of a terrible drought. So some of those windows of “perfect storm” conditions in a future of increasing heat imbalance (greater incoming than outgoing heat) could very well lead to increased hurricane intensity. To me, it is just common sense, as it was with our speaker.

 

[lynnvinc]

…most people agree increasing CO2 should contribute some warming. The question, however, is how much. The big bone of contention is climate sensitivity, and this issue remains to this day, despite the best efforts of the climate science establishment and their willing accomplices in the media and government, remains a mighty bone of contention.

So you are gambling with people’s lives that the sensitivity is very very low.

I think paleoclimatology indicates it would be around 3C for a CO2 doubling, and that is also the most likely figure Hansen came up with. Others have pointed to very long tails on the “more” side, but most climate scientist accept the most probable figure is 3C…which in and of itself could lead to extreme disaster within a few hundred years, if we persist on our BAU path…and we are actually exceeding that path (as projected back in 1990).

I’d rather gamble that it’s worse than even the climate scientists suggest, and strive to reduce my GHGs as much as possible, within my husband’s parameters – no sacrifice. So we’ve reduced more than 60% below our 1990 emissions, saving money and while increasing our living standard. I still have hopes to convince him to sacrifice a bit and get it down to 80% below our 1990 emissions…

Lauging all the way to the bank, while the poor inefficient/nonconservative folks dependent on oil and coal are crying over their fate.

 

[Kilbourne]

Hy Lynn,

So you are gambling with people’s lives that the sensitivity is very very low.

Yes, I am, in effect, wagering that the climate’s sensitivity to increased CO2 is low. Given the evident corruption of the climate science establishment, this is a reasonable wager.

But then you are making a wager of your own. You are betting that the climate is very sensitive to increased CO2, that the increases in CO2 we reasonably expect will produce dangerous global warming, and that costs of reducing atmospheric CO2 will be less than the costs of adapting to the deleterious effects of GW. That’s quite a bet.

I’ve already pointed out (to use a phrase popular with GW believers) that the deleterious effects of climate hysteria “are already upon us.” People are dying because of present efforts to reduce C02. My point is that, for folks on your side of the debate, there are negative consequences from betting wrong as well.

 

[lynnvinc]

But then you are making a wager of your own…that costs of reducing atmospheric CO2 will be less than the costs of adapting to the deleterious effects of GW.

Not “will be” less, ARE less with off-the-shelf technology. It’s a done deal that people have just refused to buy into bec they are so very very rich and can afford to be very very wasteful and profligate.

With technological advances (the tech people are busy as bees working on this), I imagine we’ll be able to save even greater bundles of dough, while emitting even less and less GHGs, and without cutting into our comfortable lifestyles…

 

[kama3]

But then you are making a wager of your own. You are betting that the climate is very sensitive to increased CO2, that the increases in CO2 we reasonably expect will produce dangerous global warming, and that costs of reducing atmospheric CO2 will be less than the costs of adapting to the deleterious effects of GW. That’s quite a bet.

There are three levels to global warming.

1. The reality of the CO2 driver warming. I’m sorry, but science on that one is rock solid. More CO2 means warmer climate. As demonstrated back in 1896.
2. The climate sensitivity, i.e. the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. There is some wiggle room here due to complexity introduced by multiple feedbacks. But, most studies converge around 3 deg. C per each doubling of CO2. (Mann-made warming, i.e. data manipulations notwithstanding).
3. The optimal course of action weighting both the impacts of increasing temperature and impacts of reductions of CO2 emissions. This matter is largely an economic and political issue, i.e. outside the scientific realm.

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, I am, in effect, wagering that the climate’s sensitivity to increased CO2 is low. Given the evident corruption of the climate science establishment, this is a reasonable wager.

masterresource.org/2012/03/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations oh hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi:10.1002/env.2140.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2012. Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226.

Olson, R., et al., 2012. A climate sensitivity estimate using Bayesian fusion of instrumental observations and an Earth System model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, D04101, doi:10.1029/2011JD016620.

Padilla, L. E., G. K. Vallis, and C. W. Rowley, 2011. Probabilistic estimates of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability. Journal of Climate, 24, 5521-5537, doi:10.1175/2011JCL13989.1.

Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 344, 1385-1388, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/abstract;jsessionid=38E88DBEDFC0F5214703FE5877A722A3.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+17+March+from+10-14+GMT+%2806-10+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JD016620.shtml

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI3989.1

sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract

 

[kimmielittle]

Hy Lynn,

Yes, I am, in effect, wagering that the climate’s sensitivity to increased CO2 is low. Given the evident corruption of the climate science establishment, this is a reasonable wager.

Once we get out from the Gatekeepers…we start to see

Summery here:
masterresource.org/2012/03/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

Abstracts And Papers:

Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations oh hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi:10.1002/env.2140.

Gillett, N.P., et al., 2012. Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226.

Olson, R., et al., 2012. A climate sensitivity estimate using Bayesian fusion of instrumental observations and an Earth System model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, D04101, doi:10.1029/2011JD016620.

Padilla, L. E., G. K. Vallis, and C. W. Rowley, 2011. Probabilistic estimates of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability. Journal of Climate, 24, 5521-5537, doi:10.1175/2011JCL13989.1.

Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 344, 1385-1388, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2140/abstract;jsessionid=38E88DBEDFC0F5214703FE5877A722A3.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+17+March+from+10-14+GMT+%2806-10+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml

agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JD016620.shtml

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI3989.1

sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract

**EDIT: SORRY FOR DOUBLE POST **

 

[kimmielittle]

MWP and LITTLE ICE AGE in Antarctica

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
Zunli Lua, , , Rosalind E.M. Rickabyb, Hilary Kennedyc, Paul Kennedyc, Richard D. Pancostd, Samuel Shawe, Alistair Lennief, Julia Wellnerg, John B. Andersonh
a Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA
b Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, UK
c School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, UK
d The Organic Geochemistry Unit, Bristol Biogeochemistry Research Centre, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TS, UK
e School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, LS2 9JTddd, UK
f Diamond Light Source, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, UK
g Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
h Department of Earth Science, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Received 9 August 2011. Revised 18 January 2012. Accepted 31 January 2012. Available online 25 February 2012. Editor: G. Henderson.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.01.036, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Cited by in Scopus (0)
Permissions & Reprints
View full text
Purchase
Abstract

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

[lynnvinc]

masterresource.org/2012/03/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates/…

Thanks for the info, Kimmie. I’d love to know for sure that there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about re AGW (for the sake of all those who would be harmed or dying from it), and I sincerely hope these low sensitivity claims stand the scrutiny of further science.

However, I’d still continue to mitigate AGW, since there would still be some level (somewhat higher) at which dangerous warming could occur. Plus everything I’m doing has some other pay-offs, financial and/or mitigating other problems and/or living a more Christian life of material simplicity. Hope for the best…but expect the worst & strive to prevent it, is my motto.

Here’s my take on your articles (which are only single studies, open to further scrutiny):

The Aldrin abstract doesn’t give their sensitivity, but using the Knappenberger piece:
“The [climate sensitivity] mean is 2.0°C… which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text. The 95% credible interval (CI) ranges from 1.1°C to 4.3°C, whereas the 90% CI ranges from 1.2°C to 3.5°C.”
Even if this does pan out (and I’d love for even a lower sensitivity to pan out), 2C still puts us in trouble, considering the very high levels of GHGs we are emitting. As the Padilla abstract suggestions, it would only raise the ppmv level at which we would expect dangerous warming…giving us a bit more time to turn this big Titanic ship around. And it says nothing about the equilibrium warming.

The Gillet article gives 1.3–1.8°C for data going back to 1850, but since proxies are in question (as you are so want to point out), so is his data.

Olson article – their mode is 2.8, very close to the 3 suggested by other scientists, and when you consider the long tail in the positive direction, the mean would probably be a bit larger, maybe 3 or more.

The Padilla article states (with important caveat in bold): 90% confidence the response will fall between 1.3 and 2.6 K, and it is estimated that this interval may be 45% smaller by the year 2030. The authors calculate that emissions levels equivalent to forcing of less than 475 ppmv CO2 concentration are needed to ensure that the transient temperature response will not exceed 2 K with 95% confidence. THIS IS AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE SHORT-TO-MEDIUM TERM AND NOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR LONG-TERM STABILIZATION FORCING; THE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE RESPONSE TO THIS LEVEL OF CO2 MAY BE MUCH GREATER.

The Schmittner abstract has the median at 2.3…which again with the long positive tail could mean a mean of something higher…maybe even 2.6 (the upper end of the Padilla claim, and he suggested 475 ppmv CO2 would be the tipping point into danger, I suppose for his mean or median, which should be lower than 2.3).

SOME IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS:

1. 
   *]475 ppmv CO2 is also something to be concerned about, only a bit less concerned about than the 350 ppmv that has been suggested by some scientists. And note that the earlier claims (I believe also in the IPCC) were that 450 ppmv was the tipping point into danger, so 475 ppmv is not that far off from earlier claims.
   *]The main issue is that our actual GHG emissions have pretty much exceeded or are in the “worse-case” scenarios projected in the past. That is the other factor we need to be concerned about, not just sensitivity.
   *]It is the equilibrium temp response that’s most important – which (I guess Padilla means) would include carbon feedbacks from the warming, such as from melting hydrates and permafrost, or perhaps the lag time for the climate to adjust to all the GHGs in the atmosphere. In this regard Ramanathan & Feng’s article suggest that we already have a 2.4 warming in the pipes just from existing GHGs in the atmosphere, even if we were to go to zero emissions tomorrow (see pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.full )

 

[lynnvinc]

Here is a recent projection for warming by 2050 at nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1430.html :

“Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble,” Rowlands, et al., Nature Geoscience, (2012), DOI: doi:10.1038/ngeo1430, Published online 25 March 2012 .

Incomplete understanding of three aspects of the climate system—equilibrium climate sensitivity, rate of ocean heat uptake and historical aerosol forcing—and the physical processes underlying them lead to uncertainties in our assessment of the global-mean temperature evolution in the twenty-first century1, 2. Explorations of these uncertainties have so far relied on scaling approaches3, 4, large ensembles of simplified climate models1, 2, or small ensembles of complex coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models5, 6 which under-represent uncertainties in key climate system properties derived from independent sources7, 8, 9. Here we present results from a multi-thousand-member perturbed-physics ensemble of transient coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations. We find that model versions that reproduce observed surface temperature changes over the past 50 years show global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario. This range of warming is broadly consistent with the expert assessment provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report10, but extends towards larger warming than observed in ensembles-of-opportunity5 typically used for climate impact assessments. From our simulations, we conclude that warming by the middle of the twenty-first century that is stronger than earlier estimates is consistent with recent observed temperature changes and a mid-range ‘no mitigation’ scenario for greenhouse-gas emissions.

Note: this is not a climate sensitivity study, but a projection based on sensitivity and current emissions under a “no-mitigation” scenario (which is what the skeptics are proposing and the world seems to be embracing).

 

[lynnvinc]

**Some graphs to consider –

For instance, the solar irradiance one that shows the solar cycle over the past 30+ years, and how we’ve been in a solar irradiance decline and somewhat deeper “solar minimum” for the past 10 years – which should have caused significant global cooling (which it did not) – but now with AGW AND solar irradiance perhaps on the increase we may begin to experience more and greater significant warming (than if it were just a matter of solar irradiance OR just a matter of AGW):**

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The next graph is of ocean heat content, which is increasing…and that is to some extent where a portion of the global warming has gone. Women knowledgeable in “kitchen physics” would understand this: “A watched pot never boils” (i.e., it takes a really really long time to heat up a huge quantity of water):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Hope it doesn’t get so warm down there that it starts melting methane hydrates like crazy.)

Now that should provide a bit better context for the next graph which shows global temperature data, with a slow down in the warming since 2003 (when the solar irradiation began to decline), and only a slight non-significant increase:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You can dispute these graphs. That’s fine. But I find this to be another way to understand what’s going on with AGW, and what we might expect in the future when solar irradiation really gets back to its maximum.

 

[lynnvinc]

RE climate sensitivity articles Kimmie posted – I put those up over on RealClimate, and one initial response from a blogger there was:

Knappenberger reads a bit like desperate propaganda to me.

Do be mindful that the references he makes present two different forms of sensitivity – equilibrium sensitivity & transcient sensitivity or transcient cllmate response (TCR). TCR is a smaller value. The tiny IPCC graph (on page linked below) would convert Gillett et al’s 1.3-1.8 TCR into something like 2.0-3.0 equilibrium.& Padilla’s 1.3-2.6 into 2.0-5.0 equilibrium. These are hardly what you’d call low figures.

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5-2.html

Of the rest, Schmitter et al was being praised by deniers a few months back for chopping of the “fat tail” from sensitivity estimates. It was not greatly ‘low’ other than that. Chopping the long fat tail is an exercise Knappenberger tries to join in on but gives no supporting evidence for it.

Olson is not lower than the IPCC. That leaves Aldrin et al giving 1.1-4.3. The lower end of the range may be low but note the quote via Knappenberger “…but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see following text.” The ‘following text’ would perhaps be worth reading before judgment is made. Knappenberger presumably did but says squat.

As I said ‘desperate propaganda.’