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.
Didn’t they just say that November was the warmest November in history, or at least in the top 5?
Global warming is a figment of Al Gore's bank account just as china syndrome was a figment of Jane fonda’s bank account.
This shows how much the scientists are learning about predicting climate. Not accuracy or anything, but to make predictions so far in the future that your opponents can’t refute it. In reality, we will not be using this much oil a hundred years from now. We will have moved on to something else.
Dang clouds! We must stop the production of clouds before the earth explodes!
Really? You've measured it in the real world, right? Because basing this claim on a computer model is meaningless. Computer models are not reality.
...and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced...
Always the weasel-words in these reports "potentially" etc. etc. Because they don't want to flat out state something and then be shown for the charlatans they are.
...according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.
This in spite of the fact the real world is showing us it is far less sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought, and more sensitive to solar cycles. But ok, you want to run your professional necks out on this... Don't worry, the MSM is very friendly to your types and will not crucify you when your proven wrong.
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.
Well, I can appear to be a pro football player if I put on the pads and pick up a ball... But appearances can be deceiving. Often intentionally deceiving.
“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.
This in spite of the real-world data coming in showing your models are incomplete and inaccurate. All your models predicted steadily rising temps yet there have been plateaus even reductions. There are fundamental problems with the models - fundamental. Tweaking this part or that part is useless. These guys are raising the Titanic and arguing over the upholstery pattern on the seats in the main ball room rather than oh, addressing the big {expletive} hole in the hull.
Seriously guys - your models, your entire agenda, predicts (counts on) a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global mean temperatures. This has been shown to be false. At best if there is a correlation it is complicated by so many other factors you are obviously missing something big because CO2 is rising, yet temperatures have been steady or falling for over a decade. (when you admit it and use the unadulterated data)
“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.
Ah, I see. Previous appeals to "save" ourselves and our future generations failed to gain support. So rather than appeal to altruism you're trying to hit home - in the pocket book. Well, not only is your research flawed, your basic approach to a "solution" is laughably flawed. Laughably. You do realize that man-made CO2 emissions are less than 3% of total CO2 emissions, right? So if CO2 really is going to double in the next 50 years we are powerless to stop it. Powerless. We could cut our emissions 100% - remove man made emissions completely and that would maybe delay this doubling a few years. In other words, if it is going to happen, it is going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it - so shoveling money and control into your hands isn't going to do a {expletive} thing. Go run your scam somewhere else.
What we should be looking at is this. If CO2 does continue to rise, what can we do to mitigate the effects? We cannot stop it from rising, so what can we do in terms of agriculture etc.?
As I write this at 10:00 a.m. in God’s Country, it is -17. Our high temperature is supposed to be -10. I’ll take global warming as soon as I can get it. I paid for it, and I want it.
Well, that’s settled, then...
Like the mistake of asking why the reliance on urban heat islands long after that folly was called out?
Given that it is -22C here right now, I wouldn’t be complaining. “Global warming can be nothing but good for Canada.”
“...we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100”
It was known for a long time that the earth (and other planets) rotate around the sun.
However the Church had a vested interest in keeping alive the idea that the earth was the center of the universe.
It is clear that while the climate of the earth does change, it is equally clear that there is nothing man can do to change. All we can do is adapt.
The left uses all this to push their agenda, nothing more and nothing less. Anytime I come across someone that believes in “global warming” I laugh in their face and walk way. You can not argue religion with a fanatic.
They seem to be complaining that a little human-engendered rise in CO2 is bringing on a doubling of CO2 from other sources. Whether it actually is, remains something that needs to be scrutinized.
Earth has a secret weapon, however, called green plants. From the smallest ocean borne algae and plankton to the largest trees, and lots of stuff in between. If CO2 tends upward, green plants start getting happy about it. That’s where all the carbon comes from which comprises their “body” mass. It would seem strange to me that folks who sometimes call themselves green, don’t care about the green. That is, unless the green is seen to be diminishing, then they have a cause they can wail at the world about. Something that helps the green... they don’t even notice.
Statement of fact certified by Dr. Tommy Flanagan of The Hour of Need Fact Repository, c/o Clinton Library.
I just quit reading any of their so called science. IF they had any real data that could be replicated or corroborated it would be one thing but these yobs are making it up as they go along
The dialogue between theology and observational science began in a very clumsy, combative manner.
Finer scrutiny of the theology brings out details which can reconcile most obvious differences.
"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... 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... 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... 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."IOW, when the data doesn't support the agenda, change some phony formulas to make the conclusions fit the agenda. Thanks Abathar.
Where do they admit there are so many variables in the formation of water vapor, that it is impossible to predict?
Since water vapor comprises 93% of “greenhouse gases”, it makes the citation of CO2 variation laughable.
Too funny but you neglected the hurl alert.
Are you sure this isn’t satire?
Pacify.
Are they rewriting their scriptures? 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.