Recent assessment of climate sensitivity: +7.8C per doubling of CO2

[GliderGuider]

This paper was presented in July, 2012 in Istanbul. I've not seen it referenced before, so I thought it was worth noting.

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate_Sensitivity.htm

The current ensemble of climate models has great difficulty dealing with the complexity of the feedback processes involved. Their outputs are known to be too conservative and have a high degree of uncertainty. In constrast this paper presents a definitive value of climate sensitivity with much lower levels of uncertainty. The multi-disciplinary approach is independent of global climate models and is grounded in empirical data concerning the dynamics of the whole earth system. The derived value of climate sensitivity is significantly higher than current estimates which it should now replace. It will require a radical revision of the strategic approach to the mitigation of climate change. It lays the foundation for a new assessment of non-linearity and the relationship between feedback dynamics and sensitivity. It also enables exploration of the critical threshold between equilibriating and runaway behaviour in the global climate system.

From the paper itself:

Working with the dynamic thermal equilibrium of the whole earth system, a conceptual model of the complex feedback system is introduced. This allows a comprehensive overview of the inter-related factors which combine to amplify the effects of anthropogenic disturbance of the global climate. A semi-log scale graphic simulator is constructed and used to map a series of historical attempts to quantify the value of climate sensitivity. The limitations of the piecemeal modelling approach are noted.

An alternative, observation-based, analysis of the Earth System Sensitivity is presented using five independent disciplines grounded in the paleological data. The approaches converge to provide a value of 7.8ºC for the equilibrium response of the average surface temperature of the planet when the atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide is doubled. The figure has much lower uncertainty range than the outcome of the ensemble of climate models currently used as the basis for international negotiations. A paleo-mathematical critique of model-driven estimates of climate sensitivity is conducted. The set of implications and consequences of the new value is reviewed.

The “Pledges” of the Copenhagen Accord, made by some 80 countries and renewed in Cancun and Durban, were assessed as leading to an increase of some 4ºC above pre-industrial values by 2100. Apart from the fact that no emission-descent pathways were embedded in the pledges, that non-CO2 greenhouse gases were not included, and that many of the promises are unlikely to be honoured in the current political and economic context, the calculations were made using the Charney sensitivity with its associated uncertainty spread and elision of known amplifying feedback mechanisms. 4ºC by the end of the current century is equivalent to some 6ºC at eventual equilibrium reflecting an expected concentration of CO2e of over 1000 ppm. The ESS indicates that under these conditions, temperature increase would top 10ºC by the end of the century and move to some 16ºC above the pre-industrial benchmark as eventual equilibrium is approached.

I'd advise everyone to read the PDF. It provides a remarkable education on climate feedback effects, and a sober demolishing of the traditional Charney sensitivity of +3C per doubling.

If you didn't think we were boned before, think again. A few nukes or windmills ain't gonna cut it.

Oh, and it looks like my hare-brained assessment back in November, of +10C by the end of the century wasn't off the mark at all. I may not have used good technique, but my instincts were on the money. Sorry to all those who called me out for it. Not.

[RobertEarl]

1. It's a small world

The atmosphere is relatively paper thin.

For 1,000s of years the atmosphere was amazingly stable, balanced you might say, between content and input. The climate followed the equanimity.

Now the content of the atmosphere has changed. The climate will change in congruency.

Did i get them big words right?

[Octafish]

2. Australian Outback Everywhere

The Great Lakes will be a big sand trap and it'll be 145 in the shade. Nice. We should've listened to you and this guy:

Stephen Schneider and James Hansen

GLOBAL WARMING - A QUARTER CENTURY OF UNHEEDED WARNINGS

Remembrance of the late Dr. Stephen Schneider and Hansen Award in his name

30 second Preview/Promo Part ONE
Topics: CO2 now 20% higher than in last half million years; rate of CO2 increase higher than in geologic time, extreme weather, carbon pricing and equity.

Schneider’s name came up in December 2012 when the “Stephen Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communications” was given to NASA Climatologist James Hansen. The ceremony by Climate ONE at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco united the two men who had been colleagues and friends for decades.

In TUC radio’s last program you heard Hansen’s acceptance speech. This – by extension is my credit to Schneider whose name on the press coverage of the award came up only as a quote: “a Stanford professor who died”. Nothing about his very unique and holistic view based on his expertise in biology and atmospheric science, his ability to describe how climate and life evolved together – and how that process is falling apart as humans are disturbing the earth. And nothing about his work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and his co-share of the Nobel Price with the IPCC.

I interviewed Stephen Schneider three times and consider each recording a treasure. Here today is my first meeting with Schneider in his office at Stanford in 1998. At that time he was the only scientist I could find who was willing to talk candidly on the record on climate change.

Dr. Stephen Schneider was professor in the Biological Sciences Department at Stanford University and former Department Director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado. Schneider was also Coordinating Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Schneider’s research included modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and "the relationship of biological systems to global climate change. Schneider is the author of (2009) Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate; (1989) "Global Warming, are we entering the Greenhouse Century"; (1997) "Laboratory Earth " and with Randi Londer (1984) "The Co-evolution of Climate and Life" and, as co-author with Michael D. Mastrandrea (October 2010): "Preparing for Climate Change."

For a broadcast quality mp3 version click HERE

SOURCE w mo info: http://tucradio.org/new.html

No matter what happens: Thank you for the heads-up, GliderGuider. I'm sure our elected representatives are on the case. Not.

[RobertEarl]

3. You mean where Ostriches live?

Why anyone would be surprised, I have but one clue, and that has to do with the old saying that Ostriches bury their heads in the sand whenever they hear bad news.

The co2 'Grand Bargain', has been well known for decades. It just cost too much to keep it out of the atmosphere, therefore, we get what we've bargained for.

[Octafish]

4. What's even worse is what else is in the atmosphere...

The chemical contamination it carries is bad enough, but it now contains various sundry radioactive substances to last through doomsday.

John Glenn said he was shocked at the change in the atmosphere, visible to him between when he orbited earth aboard Friendship 7 in 1962 and when he rode into orbit on Shuttle Discovery in 1998. When observing the limb of the earth, he said the atmosphere looked like a thin blue line against the blackness of space in 1962. It looked brown 36 years later.

[RobertEarl]

6. Indeed

Radioactivity from nuclear operations has exploded into the thin atmosphere. No wonder illnesses are spreading faster than medical science can keep up.

Thanks, Octafish, for caring and not being ostrich like. The world could use a few more billion like you.

[CRH]

5. The thing I find very disquieting, ...

Is David Wasdell never overstates the known research, and never back tracks on past conclusions, he just keeps developing the concept and finding irrefutable foundation. Since his work with feedback loop modeling in the Meridian Project through the Talberg presentation to now this paper nailing down his concept of exponential climate sensitivity from concentration/thermal feedback, so far nothing has been demonstrably wrong.

The omission of carbon and temperature cycle feedbacks from the Charney sensitivity calculations, make anything the IPCC has modeled, laughable and insignificant. Using Charney it was decided by most of the scientists 2*C was safe, yet at .8*C above pre industrial levels the arctic sea ice is nearly gone, continental ice is declining, permafrost an ocean hydrates thawing; and we are entering runaway warming. And worse, the IPCC report due out will be using this same sensitivity while withholding the effects of the methane releases, from their models and pathways.

One thing I did find interesting in the new report was what he considered the level of CO2e the atmosphere needed to return, for near zero radiative forcing and equilibrium. 300 ppm CO2e, reduced in 'a timeframe set by the thermal dynamics of the planetary climate system'. Even if it was feasible to stop the heating, decreasing atmospheric CO2e though earth system sequestration in sinks would be measured in a millennia and beyond.

So, plugging into 7.8 climate sensitivity we don't need models any longer, we need a short term adaption plan, and beyond that, a clear calendar.