Posted on 12/31/2013 7:29:24 AM PST by Abathar
Cloud impact on climate sensitivity unveiled
Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.
The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.
“Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation," said lead author from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.
“When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide."
The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.
Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.
When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.
However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15km updraughts are present.
The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower-level water vapour process. Instead they simulate nearly all updraughts as rising to 15 km and forming clouds.
When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
However, real world observations show this behaviour is wrong.
When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world, the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.
This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.
The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide - which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.
“Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Prof. Sherwood.
“Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.
Okay, I had to LOL when I read this part...
Bunk.
There is zero global warming.
It is all a huge scam.
The model I use now to measure my death doesn't take into consideration that I will be MORE dead then than now.
Whew. Just in time to rescue the “climate scientists” trapped in the ice in Antarctica during the summer heat wave. Blunder down under? Natural process of cleaning up the gene pool?
The hoax that won’t die. These folks will never give up as long as there is grant money to be gained. Science has been indelibly besmirched by this sorry tale.
Before the debate about the meaning of a pile of numbers can begin:
1. Where is the scientific equipments calibration certification documents for each every sensor used to derive said numbers over the time span of the collection sample?
2. Is the calibration certification verifiable and not possible to be altered by any source once the certification is sealed?
3. For the data from these calbrated sensors, demonstrate the chain of custody that is unalterable from the sensor, its time and date, to the output final documents (charts, graphs, tables). The data must be verifiable as unchanged, accurate and true by any and all that investigate the data. This includes surprise inspections.
If workers are required to work under these condition inside a nuke plant (and they are) why should data that supposedly threatens the entire Earth in one way or another not be held to the same scrutiny?
Is it my imagination or can you actually spot the coordinated propaganda efforts these days?
Expect several more ‘climate change’ stories to follow
The we must ban oceans, rivers and lakes immediately...............
Lying sos, satanist, communist MF’ers all!
Another New Year, Another New Spin On Global Warming.....
Being an old PMEL Calibration guy, those statements are valid.
But having said that, the use and placement of the sensors is very important, if not more so.
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
Oh and out of the 73 computer models in use... NONE OF THEM CAN PREDICT THE CLIMATE TODAY WHEN THEY ARE PROGRAMMED WITH THE ACTUAL RECORDED CLIMATE HISTORY THAT WE KNOW IS TRUE... THEY ARE ALL LIES BASED UPON LIES TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH AND TO PASSIFY THOSE THAT WORSHIP MAN AND NATURE BUT DENY GOD!
The marijuana cloud they've been smoking?
Like when Al Gore said in 2008 that the icecap at the North Pole would be gone within 5 years?
That would be today. And instead it’s bigger than ever. Winters are harsher, and last longer.
The world has been pumping out CO2 at record levels for the last 15 years. If the assumption is that CO2 is the direct driver of a warmer climate, why haven’t world temperatures gone up at all in that time?
Clearly the assumption is wrong.
They simply re-jiggered their models to fit them with past data and future preferences.
Right now warming is somewhere less than 1C per century and dropping. Unless his "corrected" model shows how and when it is supposed to accelerate I wouldn't give it a second thought.
OTOH, there is a nifty tug of war between the old school "it will get really warm" alarmsts and the "will you look at all those storms!" alarmists. Both sides contradict each other. What is missing in the piece about this research is that there must be less convection an fewer storms both tropical and in the mid-latitudes in summer.
“The hoax that won’t die. These folks will never give up as long as there is grant money to be gained. Science has been indelibly besmirched by this sorry tale.”
*******************
Absolutely correct! Grant Money is what it is all about. A$$holes!
when you’re dead wrong, just double down!
I should try these tactics in the next argument I have with the wife lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
