Climate Sensitivity Estimates: Heading Down, Way Down? (Richard Lindzen's New Paper)
Eric Gisin
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
August 25, 2009, 23:00:14 | cknappenberger
MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and collaborator Yong-Sang Choi soon-to-be published paper
(Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union) pegs the earth's "climate
sensitivity"-the degree the earth's temperature responds to various forces of change-at a value
that is about six times less than the "best estimate" put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The smaller the climate sensitivity, the less the impact that rising carbon
dioxide levels will have on the earth's climate. The less the impact that CO2 emissions will have
on the earth's climate, the less the "problem" and ability to reverse the "problem."
Lindzen and Choi's findings should come as a solace to those folks who are alarmed about future
climate and as a bulwark to those folks fighting to limit Congresses negative impact on U.S. energy
supplies and our economy. Indeed, climate sensitivity to GHGs is the multi-billion dollar question
in climate science. If climate sensitivity is low, then the earth's temperature doesn't react very
much to variations in processes which impact it-such things as solar variations, volcanic
eruptions, cloudcover fluctuations or changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases.
If, on the other hand, the climate sensitivity is high, then changes in the climate drivers can
lead to large changes of the earth's average temperatures. Another way to think of it is that the
lower the climate sensitivity, the more stable the earth's climate.
Climate sensitivity is hotly debated because we have don't have a good enough handle on the
magnitude of the earth's past temperature changes and an even worse understanding on the magnitude
of the variation of climate drivers. So while theoretically evaluating the climate sensitivity is
as easy as dividing the temperature change by the forcing change, in practice, a poor understanding
of both the numerator and the denominator have made it virtually impossible to pin down.
IPCC Estimatation and the 'Wild Card' of Clouds
In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the IPCC claims that the climate sensitivity to a
doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations likely falls in the range of 2.0�C to 4.5�C.
This is based on a combination of studies, some making determinations based on historical data,
others basing their results on climate model output.
But again, the problem with the former is an observational record that is not accurate enough to
make a reliable calculation; the problem with the latter is that the physical processes simulated
by climate models are limited both by our less-than-perfect understanding of these processes as
well as by modern-day computation power (which limits the temporal and spatial resolution of the
climate simulation).
One area where climate models are particularly weak is in their ability to accurately simulate
clouds and cloud variations. And, as you probably could have guessed, clouds and cloud variations
play a pivotal role in establishing the earth's average temperature.
There is a fast-growing evidence base that clouds respond to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations quite differently than the climate models predict that they should. Instead of
acting to enhance the warming produced by increases in the earth's greenhouse gas concentrations,
it seems as if clouds may, in fact, act to suppress the rate of greenhouse gas-induced temperature
rise.
New Findings
The latest findings to this effect by Lindzen and Choi add to the work that Roy Spencer and several
other researchers have been doing for years in this arena. Instead of a climate sensitivity lying
within the IPCC's range of 2.0� to 4.5�C, Lindzen and Choi report it to be about 0.5�C-six times
less than the IPCC's "best estimate" of 3.0�C.
Lindzen and Choi make their determination by examining radiation data measured by instruments
carried by satellites orbiting above the earth's atmosphere and comparing the variation of incoming
and outgoing radiation with the variations in the earth's tropical ocean temperatures. Climate
models seem to predict that when the ocean temperature increases, less radiation leaves the earth
to space, which leads to additional warming-a positive feedback.
However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to
space, which acts to reverse the warming-in other words, a negative feedback. Changes in cloudcover
are one possible mechanism involved. The data presented by Lindzen and Choi are shown in Figure 1.
The red box surrounds the data from the observations and shows a positive relationship between sea
surface temperature changes and the amount of radiation lost to space, while the climate models
(the other 11 boxes in Figure 1) show the opposite-radiation lost to space declines as ocean
temperatures rise.
[graphs]
Figure 1. The observed relationship between ocean temperature changes (x-axis) and radiation flux
to space (y-axis) is contained in the graph with the red box around it. The other graphs depict the
relationship as predicted by 11 different climate models (adapted from Lindzen and Choi, 2009).
This is a major paper. And as with most findings with serious repercussions to our scientific
understanding, it will doubtlessly be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and subject to various
challenges. It is too early to tell whether Lindzen and Choi's findings will prove to be the
end-all be-all in this debate. There are a few issues concerning the quality of the satellite data,
how well the results from tropics represent the entire world, the impact that the eruption of Mt
Pinatubo may have imparted on the results, and perhaps a couple of other details. But, even if the
resolution of these issues bumps up Lindzen and Choi's original determination of the climate
sensitivity a bit, there is still a long way to go before it comes close to the IPCC's "best
estimate" of 3.0�C.
Unsettled Science . and 'Skeptic' Momentum
Lindzen and Choi findings could fundamentally shift the climate debate, especially when they are
considered along side of the growing number of scientific publications (see references below) that
have reached the same general conclusion-that the climate model determinations of the earth's
climate sensitivity are too large.
No longer can low sensitivity estimates be brushed away as some silly notion dreamed up by climate
change naysayers; instead, they must be taken seriously, especially in light of the earth's recent
recalcitrance to warm at the rate projected by climate models for the early 21st century.
These results should factor prominently in any discussions aimed at trying to limit projected
future warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as they make a strong case that such actions
would be a waste of time and effort.
References:
Chylek, P., and U. Lohmann (2008), Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from
the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04804,
doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.
Chylek, P., U. Lohmann, M. Dubey, M. Mishchenko, R. Kahn, and A. Ohmura (2007), Limits on climate
sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations, Journal of Geophysical
Research, 112, D24S04, doi:10.1029/2007JD008740.
Douglass, D. H., and R. S. Knox (2005), Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo,
Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.
Idso, S. B., (1998) CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change,
Climate Research, 10, 69-82.
Lindzen, R. S., and Y-S. (2009) On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data,
Geophysical Research Letters, in press.
Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112,
D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437.
Schwartz, S. E., (2007) Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746
Schwartz, S. E., (2008) Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on
"Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system". Schwartz S. E. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 113, D15105 (2008), doi:10.1029/2008JD009872.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2008), Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations
data: a simple model demonstration, Journal of Climate, 21, 5624-5628.
Wyant, M. C., M., Khairoutdinov, and C. S. Bretherton (2006), Climate sensitivity and cloud
response of a GCM with a superparameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06714
Ouroboros Rex
> Will the MSM finally pull their heads out of their asses and report
> the hoax is over?
>
> http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
>
> August 25, 2009, 23:00:14 | cknappenberger
> MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen
..washed up tobacco denialist.
erschro...@gmail.com
> Will the MSM finally pull their heads out of their asses and report the hoax is over?
>
And when they report that gravity is just a hoax too? Obviously it's
angels holding us down.
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
at Princeton University, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the
science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by
taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."
In June 2001, Lindzen wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal,
stating that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about
long-term climate trends and what causes them" and "I cannot stress
this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past
climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will
be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions,
agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing
relevant to policy discussions."[9] In July, Lindzen was interviewed
by Fred Guterl for Newsweek. [16] Other experts also contributed to
the article. Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that
climate models were inadequate and had not improved. Guterl wrote that
despite the accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of
clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.
Lindzen gave an estimate of the Earth's climate sensitivity of less
than 1 degree Celsius. Lindzen based this estimate on how the climate
had responded to volcanic eruptions. James Hansen, a climate scientist
at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimated a climate
sensitivity of 3-4 degrees Celsius. Hansen based this estimate on
evidence from ice cores. According to Hansen: "Dick's idea that
climate sensitivity is low is simply wrong, [...] The history of the
earth proves him wrong."
The writer Uwe Buse concluded "Lindzen's arguments sound convincing,
but they are still nothing but claims, popular theories as opposed to
a transparent global process [the IPCC report], a global plebiscite
among climate researchers.
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine,
Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his
consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate
committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote,
entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific
Consensus,[26] was underwritten by OPEC."[27][28] However, according
to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said
that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness
fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s.
Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute
and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from
ExxonMobil.
Richard Lindzen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in
1977 and is a professor at MIT. He is rather well known for claiming
that "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street
Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. Other
researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do
with reality".1,2,3
Every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant
expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of Sciences,
which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a press release
released in 2005 which opens with the words “Climate Change is
real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line
with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes
of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is
included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It
is signed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
He was wrong about satellite data showing no global warming and his
Iris effect. Also, here is a quote from SEED magazine:
In 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth
warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing
heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing
overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism.
Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen
said about his five-year-old hypothesis. "I find it insane that I am
still forced to explain this."
For more, see http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Lie. No others have.
>
> No longer can low sensitivity estimates be brushed away as some silly notion dreamed up by climate
> change naysayers; instead, they must be taken seriously, especially in light of the earth's recent
> recalcitrance to warm at the rate projected by climate models for the early 21st century.
>
> These results should factor prominently in any discussions aimed at trying to limit projected
> future warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as they make a strong case that such actions
> would be a waste of time and effort.
>
> References:
>
> Chylek, P., and U. Lohmann (2008), Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from
> the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04804,
> doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.
>
> Chylek, P., U. Lohmann, M. Dubey, M. Mishchenko, R. Kahn, and A. Ohmura (2007), Limits on climate
> sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations, Journal of Geophysical
> Research, 112, D24S04, doi:10.1029/2007JD008740.
>
> Douglass, D. H., and R. S. Knox (2005), Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo,
> Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.
Yeah, real relevant to CO2.
>
> Idso, S. B., (1998) CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change,
> Climate Research, 10, 69-82.
Citing an Idso automatically means it's are a hoax.
>
> Lindzen, R. S., and Y-S. (2009) On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data,
> Geophysical Research Letters, in press.
>
> Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
> Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112,
> D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437.
>
> Schwartz, S. E., (2007) Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system.
> Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746
>
> Schwartz, S. E., (2008) Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on
> "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system". Schwartz S. E. Journal
> of Geophysical Research, 113, D15105 (2008), doi:10.1029/2008JD009872.
>
> Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2008), Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations
> data: a simple model demonstration, Journal of Climate, 21, 5624-5628.
>
> Wyant, M. C., M., Khairoutdinov, and C. S. Bretherton (2006), Climate sensitivity and cloud
> response of a GCM with a superparameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06714
>
> feedarrowtrans.png
> 1KViewDownload
James
LOL Jerry Mahlman is perhaps best known for the "hockey stick," a term
he coined to describe a chart of temperature changes over the last 1,000
years. Another fraudster.
Catoni
>"James Hansen, a climate scientist............."
Another lie.... they lie and lie and lie.... Hansen was trained
in
physics and astronomy. He has no degree in Climate Science .. or
Climatology
"Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science
program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained
a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963,
an
M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three
degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA
graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between
1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of
Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of
Astronomy at the University of Tokyo."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Gee whiz... I was trained in sociology, psychology, and human
relations.
Maybe that qualifies me to call myself a paleontologist or
medical doctor, or astro physicist.
I'll have to check up on that. LOL
Ouroboros Rex
>> "James Hansen, a climate scientist............."
>
>
> Another lie.... they lie and lie and lie....
As usual, caturdly just makes some shit up. lol
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, james just makes some shit up. lol
Catoni
O.K. Rexy boy... prove to us that Hansen has any degree in
Climatology.... we'll wait right here..
alanm...@yahoo.com
All this appeal to authority is Bullshit. Climatology
embraces meteorology, geology, paeontology, astronomy, mathematics,
and chemistry among other fields. Any graduate in any of those
fields should have grounding in physics to recognize when a paper is
flawed.
Eric Gisin's referral to Lindzen makes a lot of sense. Remember,
240 watts reaches earth's surface, thanks to the effects of
greenhouse gases, the effective flux at earth's surfice is about 390
watts. Ignore the cloud albedo, and about 324 watts per meter
squared reaches earth's surface. The net effect is a multiplied
temperature of 390/324 = 120%. Given that the multiplier on on
astronomical scales is only 20%, these tales of calamitous feedback
from increasing CO2 must be so much fearmongering- A. McIntire
Sirius
"Climate sensitivity" is a decisive parameter in climate models.
Trying to mesure it is obviously a step in the right direction in the
global warming debate.
The results of this study don't please you, but that does disqualify it.
You boast to like scientific peer reviewed studies. Here you have one. If
you know of any other scientific study showing different results, please
cite them. Or shut up .