Climate Sensitivity Proves Out BELOW IPCC Models

The IPCC's dire predictions *ALL* revolve around high climate sensitivities.

But research is very consistently coming up with climate sensitivities at or Below the lowest range of the IPCC's models / predictions.

Will they admit that in the upcoming report? I suspect Not.

One of the biggest talking points regarding 'man-made' global warming- also known as 'anthropogenic global warming,' or AGW** - is climate sensitivity.

'Climate sensitivity,' as posited by those who back the hypothesis that humans are changing the climate, refers to the range of global temperature changes which may occur in response to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, from the ostensible 'stable' level of 280 parts-per-million (PPM) the atmosphere has supposedly remained at for thousands, if not millions, of years, to 560 PPM in the future. We currently stand close to 400 PPM.
It is based upon this claim, that we keep hearing of scenarios in which the overall temperature of the Earth could climb by 2 degrees C. Or 4, or 6... and some say, even higher. And of course, all of that brings disastrous consequences for us all. More storms. Bigger storms. Less rain. Too much rain. 'Children will not know what snow is.' Droughts will get worse. Wildfires will get worse. The list of 'hell on Earth' grows almost daily.

One of the very first proponents of 'man-made' global warming, was Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). He was very much behind the origins of the 'Greenhouse' theory. In the 1890s Arrhenius concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were on the rise as a result of human activities, and calculated that a doubling of CO2 would lead to an increase in global temperatures by about 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. This would appear to fall in line with those currently pushing the heavily-politicized, UNproven theory of 'man-made' global warming.

All of this, is contingent upon the extremely high climate sensitivities built into the models. Slight problem, however: Outside of the IPCC's (or the MET CRU's, or some others) models, climate sensitivity is consistently proving out much lower than they claim.

And that's it. The main rub with climate sensitivity, is that all the dire claims you are being pressed to live in fear of, are based around the idea that we are adding too much extra CO2 to the atmosphere- and the models are Designed around the assumption that the extra CO2 will be a net positive feedback mechanism.

In fact, the models were constructed to assume feedbacks as being positive.
More CO2 means more heat absorbed into the atmosphere, means more water vapour is held in the air, means more heat is trapped, means....

Of course, it has been shown that the climate models FAIL spectacularly. And not just by Dr Spencer.

Well. I could write a fair bit about feedbacks, and I shall down the road***. But we're talking about estimates of climate sensitivity now. And recent peer-reviewed research is NOT pointing to high climate sensitivities- in fact, the only people who's research seems to indicate high sensitivity, ALL, oddly enough, seem to be those who back the UNproven theory of 'man-made' global warming.

And there has been a great deal of research in climate sensitivity, which IMO will not appear in the IPCC's AR5 report (Remember, those who back AGW, predict increases in temperature of the Earth anywhere from 3-8 degrees C, based upon a doubling of CO2):

Ring et al: estimates of climate sensitivity ranged from 1.5 to 2.0°C.


Van Hateren: millennium-scale sensitivity found to be 2.0 ±0.3°C.

Aldrin et al: the 90% credible interval ranges from 1.2°C to 3.5°C, with a mean of 2°C


Otto et al: the best estimate of sensitivity is 30% below the CMIP5 multimodel mean.

Forster et al: analysis of CMIP5 shows that 2/3 are above the Otto ‘likely’ range.

Masters: median estimate of ECS is 1.98°C.

Lewis: improved methodology shows the mode and median to be 1.6K
Note: For some reason this paper scared non-'skeptical' non-'science' so badly, that they had to make up lies and misrepresentations in order to discredit it. They did such a piss-poor, inept job of trying to discredit the paper, that even pro-AGW scientist Gavin Schmidt slapped them down. .
But then, that has been the kind of response they've been throwing at skeptics for two decades: NEVER actually TRY to debate the science in the skeptic research paper; instead they wail, cry, stomp their feet on the floor, and call names. Oh, and LIE. And OBFUSCATE. And do their best to PREVENT the paper from appearing in any science journal.

But I digress.....

von Storch & Zorita found that observed temperatures 1998-2012 were not consistent with 23 tested CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, even at the 2% confidence level. The inconsistency increases rapidly with trend length and a 20-year trend (ie to 2017) would lie outside the ensemble of all model-simulated trends.
In other words, the climate models FAIL.

von Storch & Zorita (the same paper) concludes that ‘natural’ internal variability and/or external forcing has probably offset the anthropogenic warming during the standstill. Overestimated sensitivity may also have contributed.

Tung & Zhou reported that the “underlying net anthropogenic warming rate has been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs ..”. The sharply increased CO2 concentrations of recent decades has not caused warming to accelerate, as was predicted by the models.

Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Zie plausibly found that climate models have vastly under-estimated natural variation. La-Nina-like cooling in the Eastern Pacific throughout the 21st century (since the PDO turned negative) has conquered the projected greenhouse warming. The 0.68°C warming trend during 1975-98 (when the PDO was positive) would have been 0.4°C natural and only 0.28°C anthropogenic.

Katz et al says the critical uncertainty measures used by the IPCC are “out of date by well over a decade”. Modern statistical techniques could improve assessments “dramatically”. (sorry, no link, this one is paywalled and the above paragraph is as good as it gets).

Fyfe Gillett & Zwiers focused on the extraordinary gap between the temperature simulations of 37 CIMP5 models and the observed outcomes. Due to a ‘combination of errors’, the models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years and by 400% over the past 15 years.

Take note of that gray vertical line in the chart, above. That is the Mean of all the most recent, peer-reviewed, non-IPCC work. As you can see, it is FAR below what the IPCC uses and bases their claims upon.

Now, ask yourself: has Anyone in the media, mentioned any of this work?
Have the politicians who push AGW, taken note of all this research?
Do activist climate scientists, such as james hansen or michael mann, even admit this research exists?

Well, since NO ONE who pushes AGW will even acknowledge the existence of all that research, let alone express it to you, what are you left to work with? What would you end up taking away from what you hear?

Disaster, Death and Destruction. And all, of course, YOUR fault.

Interesting thing: In 1906, Arrhenius revised his estimate of climate sensitivity, Downwards, to 1.6C (2.1C accounting for water vapour).

But those who claim 'man-made' global warming is destroying us all, will Never mention that to you.

In fact, there are some on this site, who would tell you all the research I just listed, is 'out of date.'
I suppose that would, naturally, include Arrhenius, the Originator of the Greenhouse theory.


-------

Author's notes:

Related and Important


Attribution! The image at the top of this article was created By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger. They also have an excellent article on climate sensitivity, here www.cato.org/blog/still-anothe…

The IPCC's new bout of fear-mongering begins in three weeks. I hope to have several more articles up until then. Keep your arguments handy! Many times, the people you are arguing with, haven't a clue beyond what they've been told by 'experts.'

This was originally going to be the next Climate Journal, but the information needs to get out there quickly, and there's a great deal more coming.

** - I have discovered that some people who believe implicitly in 'man-made' global warming, did not even know what 'AGW' meant! And yet, they produce pro-AGW art almost on a daily basis, on this site. When each of them realized what I was saying, they got quite angry. Does that make Any sense to you?

*** - There's several different points to cover, and I shall be devoting a Journal to each one of them, over the next few weeks.

---

Ok. For Two years, I struggled with getting something like this written. The task seemed daunting; I could not bring myself to put it together.
Granted, I could do a lot more with it- but how the heck did I write most of it now, in One sitting?