Here you guys go, something else to argue about! C)2 Climate Sensitivity 'overrated'

Jstas

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'
By Jennifer Carpenter Science reporter, BBC News

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

The results are published in Science.

Previous climate models have tended to used meteorological measurements from the past 150 years to estimate the climate's sensitivity to rising CO2.

From these models, scientists find it difficult to narrow their projections down to a single figure with any certainty, and instead project a range of temperatures that they expect, given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

The new analysis, which incorporates palaeoclimate data into existing models, attempts to project future temperatures with a little more certainty.

Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US, explained that by looking at surface temperatures during the most recent ice age - 21,000 years ago - when humans were having no impact on global temperatures, he, and his colleagues show that this period was not as cold as previous estimates suggest.

"This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought," he explained.

By incorporating this newly discovered "climate insensitivity" into their models, the international team was able to reduce uncertainty in its future climate projections.

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).

That is a much tighter range than the one produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2.0C to 4.5C.

The new analysis also reduces the expected rise in average surface temperatures to just over 2C, from 3C.

The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates.

But it does mean that to induce large-scale warming of the planet, leading to widespread catastrophic consequences, we would have to increase CO2 more than we are going to do in the near future, he said.

"But we don't want that to happen at any time, right?"

"At least, given that no one is doing very much around the planet [about] mitigating CO2 emissions, we have a bit more time," he remarked.

Whether these results mean that the global temperatures will be less responsive to falling CO2 is unclear. "I don't think we know that, to be honest," remarked Dr Rosell-Mele.

Gabriele Hegerl, from the University of Edinburgh, is cautious about the result in her perspective piece published in the same issue of Science.

She says that this is just one particular climate model, and "future work with a range of models would serve to strengthen the result".

Climatologist Andrey Ganopolski, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, went further and said that he would not make such a strong conclusion based on this data.

"The results of this paper are the result of the analysis of [a] cold climate during the glacial maximum (the most recent ice age)," he told BBC News.

"There is evidence the relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is likely to be different [during] very cold periods than warmer."

Scientists, he said, would therefore prefer to analyse periods of the Earth's history that are much warmer than now when making their projections about future temperatures.

However, although good data exists for the last million years, temperatures during this time have been either similar to present, or colder.

"One should be very careful about using cold climates to [construct] the future," he added.

Here's a link to the actual results article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513

rebuy

I'm not falling into your trap. Doctor says to keep my blood pressure down. I never argue cause I'm usually right! :biggrin:

I guess I'm off to my low flow toilet.

tonyb

rebuy wrote: »

I guess I'm off to my low flow toilet.

......and flush all these GW reports with ya if you don't mind.

cnh

No thanks, John. I'll let the scientists argue about all of this. I know from being a scholar in my own field that I "disagree" with more than 50 percent of the Leading Scholars in my area. Some of those guys/gals are real "A$$h$l$s, if you know what I mean. If I sit around and watch members of Club Polk argue about GW when some of my friends have published several books on the History of Weather and others are well known Physical Scientists at premier Universities, then "I" should have my head examined! Unfortunately, my "deductible" has increased radically, this year, so I might not even be able to afford that! lol

Enjoy Black Friday!

cnh

headrott

Using 150 years of actual climate temperature data is pathetic for making any kind of prediction. You have such a small amount of data in the time scale of the climate actually changing that you cannot make any prediction of what will happen in the future.

Also, the paleoclimate data they use is NOT a proven fact of how the climate was during the time period they are studying. These things are evidenced in the article by the fact they are now changing what they claimed was going to happen to the climate in the future. I have been stating these facts for 12 years now.

This "scientific" climate change idea is being pushed on people with no or not enough proven data, yet these "scientists" pass it off as fact. Shows you what money can do, huh?

Greg

rebuy

See there, he pulled you right in! :eek:

nooshinjohn

Great Karma... not in.:loneranger:

inspiredsports

I wonder if any of the global warming nimrods are aware that sunspots/high solar flare activity have been contributing to the supposed warm-up. This activity is projected to decrease rapidly over the next decade to the point we start bitching about freezing to death.

decal

Global warming/climate change is so boring. Let's talk about something exciting like say, speaker cables !!!!!

nooshinjohn

decal wrote: »

Global warming/climate change is so boring. Let's talk about something exciting like say, SPEARKER cables !!!!!

Fixed!:twisted:

tonyb

I'll tell ya whats not warming.....my wallet. Just doesn't have that same warm fuzzy feeling it had years ago.

Polkie2009

LOL @ Tone, is that why it's called cold,hard cash?

pearsall001

Where's Al Gore when you need him? Probably out counting polar bears.

nooshinjohn

pearsall001 wrote: »

Where's Al Gore when you need him? Probably out counting polar bears.

Nope... he's counting the millions he has made off the backs of the "astroturfers in fly-over country" by perpetuating this hoax. Trust me when I say he doesn't give a flying-fluck about polar bears or spotted owls, unless they get sucked into the intakes on his private jet.

pearsall001

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Nope... he's counting the millions he has made off the backs of the "astroturfers in fly-over country" by perpetuating this hoax. Trust me when I say he doesn't give a flying-fluck about polar bears or spotted owls, unless they get sucked into the intakes on his private jet.

LOL!!!! How true. Nothing like laughing all the way to the bank. That **** should be in jail.

tonyb

Keiko can turn a conversation on a dime with some pie.

Where is that boy when ya need him ?

gdb

Warming,polution,population explosion,famine or plague, name your poison because this world is on a one-way, downhill slide and I am delighted that I am not leaving any chlidren behind to face it !! Ho Ho Ho ! :-)

dorokusai

I just sprayed a whole can of Aqua Net that I found in an estate sale that had to be from the 1980's, directly into the atmosphere while standing on my deck today. It was glorious and I laughed about the future of my nieces and nephew since they'll be just fine if they can find a job....the hell with how hot it is.

SDA1C

inspiredsports wrote: »

I wonder if any of the global warming nimrods are aware that sunspots/high solar flare activity have been contributing to the supposed warm-up. This activity is projected to decrease rapidly over the next decade to the point we start bitching about freezing to death.

Actually this isn't entirely accurate. The next 5 years is supposed to see increased sunspot activity and kick off the next 500 year cycle of spots...just sayin..

F1nut

pearsall001 wrote: »

LOL!!!! How true. Nothing like laughing all the way to the bank. That **** should be in jail.

Karma will catch up with him.

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

Using 150 years of actual climate temperature data is pathetic for making any kind of prediction. You have such a small amount of data in the time scale of the climate actually changing that you cannot make any prediction of what will happen in the future.

Also, the paleoclimate data they use is NOT a proven fact of how the climate was during the time period they are studying. These things are evidenced in the article by the fact they are now changing what they claimed was going to happen to the climate in the future. I have been stating these facts for 12 years now.

This "scientific" climate change idea is being pushed on people with no or not enough proven data, yet these "scientists" pass it off as fact. Shows you what money can do, huh?

Greg

I agree. We have extensive evidence indicating that the earth goes through natural temperature cycles. A good example of this is the ice ages that occurred in history. The truth is, there is not enough data to prove that this "global warming" is anything other than that. As you said, we do not have enough concrete data to prove the supposed cause of global warming, much less predict the future. Heck, we can't even predict tomorrows weather accurately.

Honestly, I don't think we as a human civilization have as much of an impact on the earth as we think we do. Sure, we may manage to nuke ourselves, or kill ourselves in some other way, but the earth isn't going anywhere. After we're gone, it will heal and spring back to life.

Take the area around Chernobyl for example. Many humans were killed either instantly, or they succumbed to the effects of radiation poisoning. Our predictions and beliefs showed that those areas should still be uninhabitable now, and for a long time to come. However, both plants and wild animals are thriving in those areas.

pearsall001 wrote: »

Where's Al Gore when you need him? Probably out counting polar bears.

I thought he was out searching for manbearpig.

inspiredsports

SDA1C wrote: »

Actually this isn't entirely accurate. The next 5 years is supposed to see increased sunspot activity and kick off the next 500 year cycle of spots...just sayin..

I guess like anything else there are differing opinions, but the NASA projection I saw shows a decrease over the next decade . . .

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

txcoastal1

dorokusai wrote: »

I just sprayed a whole can of Aqua Net that I found in an estate sale that had to be from the 1980's, directly into the atmosphere while standing on my deck today.

I believe that the whole aresol scare in the 70's was the goverment trying to cover up the damages they caused during the Trinity project/cold war nuclear testing. Between the US and USSR military, there was probably more damage sustained in that 30 yrs than all man kind could produce in centuries of industrial practices.

tonyb

dorokusai wrote: »

I just sprayed a whole can of Aqua Net that I found in an estate sale that had to be from the 1980's, directly into the atmosphere while standing on my deck today. It was glorious and I laughed about the future of my nieces and nephew since they'll be just fine if they can find a job....the hell with how hot it is.

But if 6 billion people did that every day..........so they tell us, 18.5 polar bears will die, and you'll have no ice for your scotch.

Besides, even if the planet was warming alittle by whatever means, I wouldn't mind putting the snowblower away for a few decades. A nice sand volleyball court in the yard anyone ?

Evrythngmatters

F1nut wrote: »

Karma will catch up with him.

With as much money as he's made he can pay off the karma like the mob does with the cops.

The climate is like a woman, hot one day,cold the next. It can't ever make up its mind either,lol. Damned if you do,damned if you don't.

rebuy

According to Public Records, Al Gore's monthly electric bill at his estate is as much or more than most people pay for a year of electric at their home. To justify this waste and not be a hypocrite, he buys "carbon credits".

chumlie

Yaeh i know. These pesky old stupid scienctist's don't have a clue. SCIENCE BAD.

gdb

I get ALL of my climate info directly from Hannity & Limbaugh.

camp21178

Mark Twain once said "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it". I know this has nothing to add to the conversation but I always liked it.

BottomFeeder

It's amazing how many people think & act as though they know something when, in reality, they know nothing at all.

dudeinaroom

Climate change???? It was in the 60's a couple days ago.....now there is about a 1/2 inch of snow on the ground that fell a few hours ago. This time of year it is usually in the 30-40 degree range, this year it has been between 30-60 in a weeks time. Don't know what is going on, but I hate the sudden shifts in temp, makes my body hurt.