New Lewis And Curry Paper On Climate Sensitivity

[IanC]

Equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.6C, transient climate sensitivity of 1.3C, for doubling CO2. All data taken from the AR5 IPCC report.

I will post up some links eventually but it is easily found at WUWT, Climate Etc, Climate Audit, etc, etc.

As many of you know climate sensitivity has been one of my favourite topics for years. It was wildly exaggerated by consensus climate science and I predicted it would be lowered substantially. The last IPCC report ducked the issue and this new paper shows why.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we are certainly going to find out who is correct on this issue.

 

[SSDD]

There is no climate sensitivity to CO2...but if you have to believe in magic..it is better to keep it small....clearly mainstream climate science is wrong...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.6C, transient climate sensitivity of 1.3C, for doubling CO2. All data taken from the AR5 IPCC report.

I will post up some links eventually but it is easily found at WUWT, Climate Etc, Climate Audit, etc, etc.

As many of you know climate sensitivity has been one of my favourite topics for years. It was wildly exaggerated by consensus climate science and I predicted it would be lowered substantially. The last IPCC report ducked the issue and this new paper shows why.

87% certainty 0.8/1

The high end is below a 1 to 1 ratio... Interesting as the physical observations go as low as 0.0 - 0.4. As another point out in my thread, this one number can change from area to area on the planet as water vapor and atmosphere make up change.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no climate sensitivity to CO2...but if you have to believe in magic..it is better to keep it small....clearly mainstream climate science is wrong...

Curry and Lewis based their work on the IPCC claims.. I too believe it is way to high even at 0.8.

The fact they could never get above 87% certainty should tell you that the data from the IPCC is way off.

 

[Crick]

Here is the abstract. Where do you see 0.8 or lower?

Abstract
Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750–2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system. The resulting estimates are less dependent on global climate models and allow more realistically for forcing uncertainties than similar estimates based on forcings diagnosed from simulations by such models. Base and final periods are selected that have well matched volcanic activity and influence from internal variability. Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83 and 5–95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 and 1.05–4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 and 0.90–2.50 K. Results using alternative well-matched base and final periods provide similar best estimates but give wider uncertainty ranges, principally reflecting smaller changes in average forcing. Uncertainty in aerosol forcing is the dominant contribution to the ECS and TCR uncertainty ranges.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is the abstract. Where do you see 0.8 or lower?

Abstract
Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750–2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system. The resulting estimates are less dependent on global climate models and allow more realistically for forcing uncertainties than similar estimates based on forcings diagnosed from simulations by such models. Base and final periods are selected that have well matched volcanic activity and influence from internal variability. Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83 and 5–95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 and 1.05–4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 and 0.90–2.50 K. Results using alternative well-matched base and final periods provide similar best estimates but give wider uncertainty ranges, principally reflecting smaller changes in average forcing. Uncertainty in aerosol forcing is the dominant contribution to the ECS and TCR uncertainty ranges.

Note they used the term UNCERTAINTY RANGES. they did not choose certainty because the ranges are so wide the error bars would make an assessment useless.

They have no clue about water vapor and aerosols in our air and how they affect the sensitivity response.. By this simple admission they show that the science is completely NOT SETTLED in any way...

 

[Crick]

Not knowing everything is not equivalent to knowing nothing. Something you'd do well personally to keep in mind.

 

[skookerasbil]

In the early 90's the IPCC was straight up on their data analysis summary with regard to the uncertainties. By the late 90's, ........180 degree swing.

A retrospective >> The models are wrong Behind The Black

 

[Zander]

How can you tell when a "climate scientist" is lying? When their lips are moving.......

 

[skookerasbil]

lOsInG

 

[skookerasbil]

How can you tell when a "climate scientist" is lying? When their lips are moving.......

 

[IanC]

I haven't seen any rebuttal arguments yet but they are sure to come. Mind you there have been at least a dozen alternate sensitivity papers in the last five years that have been lower than the IPCC, even though AR5 refused to give a best estimate while still increasing their confidence levels.

 

[mamooth]

Curry, from her blog.

An unsettled climate Climate Etc.
---
"CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales."
---

And then a couple days later, we see a paper where she quantifies how much CO2 will affect the climate per decade.

She can't seem to make up her mind. When she publishes a paper, she quantifies exactly how much of a control knob CO2 is on a decadal time scale. But when she's smooching fellow deniers, it suddenly becomes not a control knob at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Curry, from her blog.

An unsettled climate Climate Etc.
---
"CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales."
---

And then a couple days later, we see a paper where she quantifies how much CO2 will affect the climate per decade.

She can't seem to make up her mind. When she publishes a paper, she quantifies exactly how much of a control knob CO2 is on a decadal time scale. But when she's smooching fellow deniers, it suddenly becomes not a control knob at all.

Nope --- you've just wasted YEARS of your life --- NOT LISTENING -- to the ACTUAL skeptical arguments. Nobody important is denying some effect from CO2. We just don't believe the Climate System is as broken and unstable as you do.... Where a wisp of CO2 would cause it to destroy itself..

 

[skookerasbil]

Curry, from her blog.

An unsettled climate Climate Etc.
---
"CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales."
---

And then a couple days later, we see a paper where she quantifies how much CO2 will affect the climate per decade.

She can't seem to make up her mind. When she publishes a paper, she quantifies exactly how much of a control knob CO2 is on a decadal time scale. But when she's smooching fellow deniers, it suddenly becomes not a control knob at all.

= great uncertainty.


duh