Earth's temperature (30-50%) more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought (feedbacks)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6738.html

Earth's temperature more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously thought

Press release issued 6 December 2009

Research published in Nature Geoscience

In the long term, the Earth’s temperature may be 30-50 per cent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience this week.

The results show that components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales – such as land-ice and vegetation – have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but these factors are often neglected in current climate models.

Dr Dan Lunt, from the University of Bristol, and colleagues compared results from a global climate model to temperature reconstructions of the Earth’s environment three million years ago when global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively high. The temperature reconstructions were derived using data from three-million-year-old sediments on the ocean floor.

Lunt said, “We found that, given the concentrations of carbon dioxide prevailing three million years ago, the model originally predicted a significantly smaller temperature increase than that indicated by the reconstructions. This led us to review what was missing from the model.”

The authors demonstrate that the increased temperatures indicated by the reconstructions can be explained if factors that vary over long timescales, such as land-ice and vegetation, are included in the model. This is primarily because changes in vegetation and ice lead to more sunlight being absorbed, which in turn increases warming.

Including these long-term processes in the model resulted in an increased temperature response of the Earth to carbon dioxide, indicating that the Earth’s temperature is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously recognised. Climate models used by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change often do not fully include these long-term processes, thus these models do not entirely represent the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to carbon dioxide.

Alan Haywood, a co-author on the study from the University of Leeds, said “If we want to avoid dangerous climate change, this high sensitivity of the Earth to carbon dioxide should be taken into account when defining targets for the long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations”.

Lunt added: “This study has shown that studying past climates can provide important insights into how the Earth might change in the future.”

…

[kestrel91316]

1. Wow, I'm sure glad those 2 British emails proved that global warming is a fraud.

Otherwise we sure would be in trouble......

:sarcasm:

[Spoonman]

10. 1079 emails and 72 documents ....

sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Working as a degreed (MS Environmental Science) environmental professional, I have to look at this situation with eyes wide open.

"Houston we have a problem!"

Truth and Honesty, not bull-headed stubbornness, need to be the guiding principles from here on out for EVERYONE!

Let’s face it, there is the possibility that the world has been conned.
(money turns good people evil)

[kestrel91316]

21. Yes, 1079 emails exist. I have only seen two quotes that appear the least bit controversial,

and they are only so when taken completely out of context. The fact that emails with words in them exist does not instantly make them "incriminating", lol. They are only proof that scientists communicate with each other, like other humans.

Yes, 77 documents exist. Actually, on planet earth, probably billions of documents exist. Maybe trillions. Your point is???

Two out of context and cherrypicked/edited comments in emails do not constitute anything other than a manufactured problem for you to manufacture outrage against.

FAIL.

[Spoonman]

23. "out of context"?

YOU FAIL!

Many e-mails discuss how to manipulate the data so that the desired outcome is achieved.
They also discussed keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature.
Why?
Many of them discuss destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
Again, why?

Please, place your head back in the sand and leave this issue to those of us that work in this field!

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Which field is that?

…

Please, place your head back in the sand and leave this issue to those of us that work in this field!

[glitch]

45. The lucrative field of climate change debunking!

minimum wage, no health benefits.

[Spoonman]

58. Debunking?

Simple phrases from simple minds......

I simply want to know the truth!

Only an idiot pursues an endeavor without gathering all the facts first!

I spend ten times the amount of time working on improving the environment than 98% of the people on this board, and simply because I want to gather the facts first, I'm labeled negatively.

I seek the truth, nothing more, nothing less. I would suggest everyone do the same.

I guess you think like the crowd that believed all the "scientist" that adamantly stated DDT was perfectly safe?

And let's not forget Thalidomide, that sure worked as well as the "scientist" said it would.

Money motivates an individuals opinion PERIOD!

(starting to see my mindset now?)

[Nihil]

59. Sauce for goose, etc., ...

> Simple phrases from simple minds......
>
> I simply want to know the truth!

Truly a simple phrase from a simple mind ... :P


> Money motivates an individuals opinion PERIOD!
> (starting to see my mindset now?)

I think I understand what you're driving at but I would point out
that you are not quite the unbiased innocent activist that you'd
like to appear ...

>> Working on the North Slope for a total of 2.5 years as a Health Safety
>> and Environmental Manager for a seismic exploration company

... nor do you abstain from hysterical adherence to certain right-wing
talking points ...

>> Gore's company, (he's the founder and CEO), GIM was specifically established
>> to take financial advantage of the Global Warming concern of the world.
>> Can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be
>> trusted as an honest broker on that topic?
>>
>> What's the difference between war profiteering and this? NONE!!!!!!

Hmmm.

> simply because I want to gather the facts first, I'm labeled negatively

No, not "simply because (you) want to gather the facts first", because you
are actively denying that the facts have been gathered and advocating even
more delay before imposing financial penalties on fossil fuel use.
The additional fact that the latter would negatively impact your income
just becomes sauce for the gander when viewing your arguments against, say,
Al Gore's ...
:shrug:

[kestrel91316]

28. Please provide links for each and every email that supports your claim.

Along with analysis of its context in the series of emails. Then please provide the original long form diploma proving you are a PhD climatologist qualified to assess the data in question. A certified copy will not suffice. I demand the original.

:rofl:

Don't think we haven't noticed how the birthers all disappeared right when this manufactured controversy arose.........

[Spoonman]

57. OK

Let's apply the same to you!
What, pray tell, are your qualifications? (internet researcher need not apply)
We want the original degrees as well!
Double edge swords are a bitch in debate huh!?

Too bad your left with nothing but 3 brain cell rhetoric on this subject matter.

Next time argue with facts, unbridled passion NEVER proves anything except the unwillingness to open you mind! (too bad it opened your mouth first)

[DCBikerJohn]

2. Keep you religion off my liberty

There's more credible evidence supporting virgin birth than anthropogenic global warming. And both belief systems have the same goal: limit your liberty in the name of your salvation. The Holy Global Pontiff Al Gore has been discredited and exposed at every turn.

The natural course of human history is framed by the master-servant paradigm. The American experiment with individual liberty has been the exception to this paradigm. It's a fragile, unlikely exception and it's under its greatest threat from within than any external threat it has ever faced. If gold rusts, what then will iron do?

Those who deceive themselves into believing that they themselves will be part of the Elect are sadly mistaken. Salvation will be limited to the few elites who will continue to enjoy abundance and luxury in the name of reverence for the movement, at the expense of the vast majority will suffer the scarcity and mediocrity in the name of saving their mortal souls. And they'll die just as miserably as they lived: jealous, put-upon, and unhappy.

[phantom power]

3. America -- Fuck Yeah!1!1!!! Go Galt!

:rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Wow! Just wow!

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

October 21, 2009Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.¹

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

---

¹The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf">American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=4e1c64b4-4f59-4243-87d1-3b926faa4dbd">American Chemical Society, http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml">American Geophysical Union, http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html">American Meteorological Society, and http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm">American Statistical Association.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 USA
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] http://www.aaas.org

[DCBikerJohn]

5. Consensus as a standard for science?

It's laughable that the Evangelists of anthropogenic global warming rely upon consensus as the gold standard supporting their belief. Consensus is not a scientific standard. Peer review processes in reputable scientific journals reject the consensus based process.

I thought we learned this lesson in the middle ages: Copernicus surely was not part of the consensus, but he could not have been more correct. Sometimes the lone voice in the wilderness is not wrong. (Heck, didn't we re-learn the lessons of consensus with the WMD in Iraq?)

Any theory that cannot progress beyond consensus and provide reproducible proofs is usually considered relevant only by tin foil hat-wearing wackos. But, this theory is seductive as a result of its potential application: allowing an Elite to dictate the terms of life and lifestyle to others AND securing for themselves abundance and luxury. This paradigm is not unique. (See also Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.) The only trick is, you've got to make sure your name is written in the Book of Life. And most people who advocate lifestyle modification for the sake of the earth will find themselves as just one of the rabble, on the outside gazing upon the lavish world of the Elite. (See also Al Gore.)

Please, sir, I want some more.

Want: It's what's for dinner.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. I guess you didn't read the letter

… These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. …

As for that lone voice, crying in the wilderness, yeah, he was describing the “Greenhouse Effect” over a century ago…

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

…

Greenhouse effect

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO₂ and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

This simplified expression is still used today:

ΔF = α ln(C/C₀)

…

[DCBikerJohn]

7. Consensus by definition means I HAVE NO PROOF

I read the letter. The geocentric model was supported by a well-meaning consensus based upon the information available at the time. But it was wrong.

Bloodletting persisted into the 20th century based upon consensus. A billion Catholics believe a wafer is transformed into the body of a Jew who rose from the dead over two-thousand years ago. There's no end to the human masochism - it's part of the human condition.

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the opposite of science. Consensus is more akin to religion than objectivity.

But, let's stop pretending this is about the earth. This is about the seductive temptation to control the lives and lifestyles of our fellow human beings. Each of us has one life. Humanists and humanitarians should endeavor to facilitate maximum individual fulfillment except in the face of incontrovertible proof. Anthropogenic global warming is far from proven; by its own confession it cannot progress past consensus.

You're being played for a fool, which is unremarkable on its surface. The remarkable factor is that those playing you will never abandon their lives of excess while asking you to do so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Re: “Consensus by definition means I HAVE NO PROOF”

Ah! You mean like the scientific consensus regarding Newton’s Laws of Motion?

If I understand you, the only true science is the work of an individual which contradicts the current consensus.

Logically then, once a consensus is formed around that individual’s work, it promptly becomes false.

[DCBikerJohn]

14. Laws of Motion vs. Global Warming Consensus

Newton's observations on motion became laws of physics because they are observable and predictable: Every time an object is dropped in a vacuum, it falls at the same rate.

Global Warming (anthropogenic or not) cannot be predicted. Ten years ago the global warming evangelists told us that the temperature was going to rise so that crops would not grow, so that water would be scarce, so that the sea level would drown coastal cities. Forty years ago the same people told us that we were going to enter an ice age if we did not change our sinful ways.

Motion is predictable, and as a result I modify my life and lifestyle to obey its knowable outcomes. But I question the need to modify, by force of law, another individual's life and lifestyle based upon a consensus, be it anthropogenic global warming or virgin birth/resurrection. If an individual wants to live his or her life in accordance with something that's unproven, be it virgin birth or anthropogenic global warming, they should be free to do so. They can confess their sins; they can abandon meat. But to force another person to limit his or her liberty based upon an unproven belief is inhuman. It's tyranny.

Consensus is subjectively a function of who you ask.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. The Greenhouse Effect was predicted 100 years ago

The outcome has been observed to be in accord with those predictions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=220587&mesg_id=220615

So, tell me again about the scientific method…

[Nederland]

29. You exaggerate a little here, don't you?

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect was predicted 100 years ago, and over that entire time frame the observed outcome has been close to the predictions. However, while CO2 has been increasing steadily over that time frame, temperature has not. The original theory postulates a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature that is not manifest throughout the entire period. For example, while there is a strong correlation between increased temperature and increased CO2 during the 1977-2001, the time periods of 1958-1977 and 2001-2009 show no correlation at all. To say then that the original theory of the Greenhouse Effect is confirmed by observed data is simply not true. Climate is much more complicated that Arrhenius ever imagined.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. No, actually, I didn't

You said it yourself:

… over that entire time frame the observed outcome has been close to the predictions …

Really, what’s 100 years on a geologic time scale?

[Nederland]

36. Correlation is not Causation

The fact that CO2 increase and temperature increase correlate over the past 100 years is not proof of a causal relationship. The fact that periods of time exist where there is no correlation must be explained, and Arrhenius's theory by itself cannot explain them.

[Viking12]

38. Darwin didn't get every detail of evolution correct either...

Nevertheless, his predictions are still considered quite valuable.

Moreover, I fail to see where Arrhenius predicted that internal variability would cease.

[Nederland]

42. The point the poster was making concerned verifiability

Newton's theory are verifiable because you can create an experiment that isolates a single variable and then run it. You cannot test and verify Arrhenius's theory in the same way because you cannot isolate all the contributing factors to climate. Even today it is impossible to determine the exact nature of CO2 forcing because you cannot measure the contributions of all the other factors. Over any given (modern) period you can know how much temperature changed, and you can know the changes in forcing factors: CO2, other GHGs, cloud cover, aerosols, solar variance, etc. However, you cannot determine the exact nature of any single forcing because you cannot fix all the forcings except one and measure the resulting temperature change. For you to truly verify Arrhenius's theory, you would have to fix the value of everything but CO2 for a period of time and them measure the results. Obviously this is impossible.

Consider the following IPCC graphic on radiative forcings:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

There is a reason that the description of the graphic says "Global average radiative forcing estimates and ranges". These are not values that are the outcome of calculations and experiments, they are what the IPCC says they are: estimates.

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. True enough, “Correlation is not Causation”

There have been mitigating factors, for example, sulfur compounds slowing things down in the “post-war era.”

In a sense, no amount of correlation can ever absolutely prove causation. On the other hand, when a prediction is made in advance and there is a striking amount of correlation…

Actually, when you think of how very complex the ecosystem is… it seems to me that the accuracy of Arrhenius theory is all the more striking. Don’t you agree?

[Nederland]

43. Arrhenius theory is not "accurate"

It is only accurate for cherry picked periods of time. Do I find that striking? No, I find it completely underwhelming.

[Viking12]

48. You confuse accuracy for precision.

But then again, you confuse lot of things.

[Nederland]

49. No I am not

Accuracy is the degree to which predicted values match the observed data. Arrhenius's theory was that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise 1.6 °C, which can be expressed as a formula ΔT = λ ΔF. The accuracy of the theory is measured by plugging in the starting temperature and CO2 delta over a given test period into the formula, and comparing it to the observed temperature. If you do that, you will see that Arrhenius's theory is not accurate, because there is a difference between his predicted temperatures and the observed temperatures. It is also not precise, because the difference between his predicted temperatures and the observed temperatures vary widely in different time periods.

[GliderGuider]

50. So are you saying

That there is no evidence of AGW? That's what your nit-picking seems to imply.

[Nederland]

51. No

I am saying that the magnitude of future AGW is impossible to predict at this time. Arrhenius was correct in asserting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but his assertion that a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.6 °C increase in temperature is not validated by looking at the historical record as OkItsJustMe claimed in post #20. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to calculate CO2 forcing using the data we currently have, and may never be possible. I explained why in post #42.

[GliderGuider]

52. So, what are the implications of that position for public policy? nt

[Nederland]

53. Why does that matter?

You should decide whether or not what I'm saying is correct before worrying about the impact, shouldn't you? It's almost as if whether or not you accept what I'm saying is true depends upon what the implications are...

[Viking12]

26. Really?

Global Warming (anthropogenic or not) cannot be predicted. Ten years ago the global warming evangelists told us that the temperature was going to rise so that crops would not grow, so that water would be scarce, so that the sea level would drown coastal cities. Forty years ago the same people told us that we were going to enter an ice age if we did not change our sinful ways.

Show me these predictions in the scientific literature. You lie!

[kestrel91316]

33. +1

[tinrobot]

19. The word you're looking for is 'confirmation' not 'consensus'

If a dozen researchers all measured Newton's laws of motion and came up with the same or similar results, it wouldn't be a 'consensus', it would simply be confirmation of a scientific theory.

Climate science is a little more complicated than Newtonian mechanics, but it's the same idea. Multiple experiments and data from multiple researchers over many decades that all confirm the same conclusions - the planet is heating up, and we're causing it.

This is not about a consensus. it's not about Catholicism or religion or about belief of any sort. It's not about some conspiracy to control people's lives. It's about science, which is simply about facts. Please take the time to read up on the facts before spouting your ridiculous hyperbole.

[kestrel91316]

34. Confirmation, consensus, they are all the same. Just big words starting

with C. Who cares what they actually MEAN?

[glitch]

46. Peer Review.

Sounds suspiciously like a path to consensus-building, booooo! ;)

[kestrel91316]

31. You appear terribly confused. That letter expresses a consensus opinion. It is not

to be confused with peer-reviewed published research studies, which are held to a slightly different standard. I guess they forgot to teach that at Bob Jones "University" or Liberty "University", or wherever it is that you imagined you got an "education".

[GliderGuider]

8. There is no point feeding this one.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I appreciate your suggestion

On the other hand, while this one may be out on the extreme fringe, it’s possible that more reasonable persons, reading this may be influenced in their thinking…

[DCBikerJohn]

18. Hat tip

Thank you for keeping this on the level and congenial. I have no animosity toward those who have different belief systems than I do. Your response to the cute picture is most appreciated.

[kestrel91316]

30. Please provide links to peer-reviewed, published studies proving that

global warming either doesn't exist, or if it dies, that man's burning of millions of tons of dead dinosaurs has nothing to do with it. Then provide your original long-form diploma proving that you have a PhD in climatology. A certified copy will not suffice.

Oh, and if you personally authored the peer-reviewed studies you cite, I will award you a bonus: a bunny with a pancake on its head.

[Spoonman]

13. The only problem I have with this is

ALL the scientific societies that endorsed this recieve public funding (past and most importantly FUTURE).

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonman]

25. What a fucking moron...?

Excellent way to demonstrate your level of education in this field.

How many billions will GE lose if the theory falls apart?

How many 10s of trillions by thousands of businesses will be lost in total if this theory falls apart?

Yes, grant money (fucking moron to borrow a phrase) millions and millions of dollars of it.

You have zero knowledge of how the scientific community works!

Feel free to remark on the subject matter in which you do have a knowledge in, and leave this one to the adult to discuss.

[Viking12]

27. Fail.

If the theory were to fall a part, more money would be funneled to climate research because knowing is necessary for for all sorts of agriculture, development, insurance, and military needs.

As Scientific America recently wrote

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely. Surely, the Freemasons could do better than that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=5

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. OK, let me get this straight…

Your problem is that these societies receive public funding…

As opposed to what?

Exactly how should the bills be paid in order to make you more comfortable?


But, let’s follow through your logic for a moment…

Is it your suggestion that all of these scientific societies are engaged in a grand world-wide conspiracy to derive more public funding by producing false data to support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change?

[MH1]

12. Not looking to limit individual liberty, looking to make corporate practices safe

there's a big difference.

Ever heard of the "precautionary principle"? basically, prove you aren't going to destroy the air I breathe and the water I drink with your action, BEFORE you take that action. Too bad we don't follow it here.

[DCBikerJohn]

16. Can you prove what you ask of others to prove?

In 1000 words or less, please prove that what you plan to do today will not destroy the air I breathe and the water I drink. Reasonable request, right? (Please be sure to specifically address the pollutant carbon dioxide which you exhale.)

[pscot]

37. Great addition to the general merriment

This place has been parched for some serious comic relief.

[Nederland]

17. What a bad title

The title implies that we can actually figure out how sensitive the earth is to changes in carbon dioxide, and that we've recently discovered that it is more sensitive than we originally thought. The problem is, we can't calculate the sensitivity to CO2 because we lack the data. Modeling climate requires accurate data on a wide variety of factors: CO2, other GHGs, aersols, cloud cover, water vapor, solar variance, ocean currents, etc. We have fairly accurate data on these things only for the last 30 years or so. I don't understand how they can possibly claim to be running models to test conditions three million years ago. IPCC researchers themselves have admitted that you can't even run models on temperatures in the entire 20th century without making all sorts of assumptions.

[kestrel91316]

35. We have accurate data on the composition of the atmosphere going back hundreds of

thousands of years, IIRC. FROM THE ICE CORES.

I guess when the ice is all melted folks can deny there ever was ice, or a different atmosphere.

[Nederland]

39. And what about the other data you need?

Aersols? Cloud Cover? Ocean Currents? Ozone levels? Do you have accurate data on all of those going back hundreds of thousands of years? No. In order to accurately model climate you need all of those factors accurately measured, not just half of them.

[kestrel91316]

40. Well, gosh, since we never have 100% of the conceivable data on ANYTHING

that science studies (there are always some sort of parameters that don't get quantified) then we must ignore all scientific findings because they are woefully incomplete. Science journals around the world should just shut down, because by that standard, nothing can ever be concluded about anything at all.

IOW, not knowing everything = not knowing anything.

Please, God, don't let this person be involved in any sort of science. Teh stoopid hurts.

[Nederland]

44. Strawman

There is a big difference between saying we have to have 100% of the data needed, and expressing concern that we have less than half.

I asserted the later, not the former.

[joshcryer]

56. This adjustment to CO2 sensitivity is based on additional evidence in sea floor sediments.

However, it is also based on a model that is itself based on thousands of papers. I don't see anything wrong with their methodology.

[Nederland]

47. True but irrelevant

The OP says the researchers ran climate models for periods three million years ago. Ice core data does not go back that far.

[joshcryer]

55. There's a reason the range is so big, there is a lot of uncertainity. They're trying to improve.

They are not making some sort of absolute statement.

[joshcryer]

54. The title only indicates a range, the paper itself shows that the range is better understood.

It makes no claims about climate predictability. It will be up to the GCMs to incorporate the findings in their models and run them to see if they pan out.

A model can only be based on empirical observation of various environmental factors. This paper constitutes new additions and new understanding toward the environment.