Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and High Climate Sensitivity
Our mission is to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2
Why CO2 is Good
Climate Change
Politics are Not Green
News & Media
Stay Informed
About Us
In the news
  Posted on: Monday, February 27, 2012
Print  Print     Email  Email    RSS Feed  RSS Feed
Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and High Climate Sensitivity
Source: World Climate Report

A few months ago, we reported on a paper in the scientific literature (Schmittner et al. 2011) that concluded that there were only "vanishing probabilities" that the value of the earth's climate sensitivity-the amount of global temperature change resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content-was above 3.2°C, and that a climate sensitivity exceeding 6°C was "implausible." Now, a new paper has been published (Olson et al., 2012) that finds that the 95% confidence range for the value of the earth's actual climate sensitivity extends only to a value as great as 4.9°C. This is yet another in an expanding list of papers that strongly suggest that that the IPCC entertainment of the possibility that the earth's climate sensitivity is extremely high (say, greater than 5-6°C, is wrong).

As apocalyptic climate change lurks among high sensitivity values, these new findings virtually eliminate the places where it could be hiding-and relegate talk of apocalyptic climate change to that of Loch Ness monsters, big foot, and woolly mammoths in Siberia.

Roman Olson and colleagues (including Nathan Urban, also a collaborator on the Schmittner et al. project) published their new findings in the Journal of Geophysical Research. They set out to investigate the range of values which most likely contains the earth's actual climate sensitivity using a combination of observations of the earth's climate along with an intermediate complexity climate model developed at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. The researchers varied the parameters of the climate model, including the climate sensitivity, and then used the model to hindcast the observed changes in surface temperature (since 1850) and ocean heat content (since 1950). The model hindcasts were then compared with the actual observations and a probability was assigned to that group of parameters (including the climate sensitivity) which represented the probability that the actual observations could be produced by such a model parameter set. Olson and colleagues employed Bayesian statistics to establish this probability-a technique which employs a prior assumption about the distribution of potential parameter values (including climate sensitivity).

It turns out that the "priors" have a large influence on the final solution. In other words, if you already have some rough idea of the range of potential climate sensitivity, that rough idea can help guide you to a better solution when new, relevant data become available.

Back in 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the IPCC decided that instead of using an "expert prior" (that is, one that was guided by a rough guess) to help guide its determination of the distribution of possible climate sensitivity values, that it would use a "uninformed prior" (that is, as it sounds, one which adds no previous knowledge). The uninformed prior used by the IPCC was a uniform prior-the IPCC assigned an equal chance that the climate sensitivity could be anywhere in the range from 0°C to 10°C. This choice seems somewhat absurd in light of the fact that ever since the first IPCC report, from back in 1990, the IPCC has issued a rough guess that the climate sensitivity was somewhere in the 1.5° to 4.5°C range. You would think that their own "expert" assessment would be better than one that was "uninformed"-but perhaps that tells you something about how much credence they put in their own expertise!

Click here for the full article
Post a comment
Email Address: (must be a valid address)
(will not be published or shared)
Comments: (plain text only)
Recent Articles:
6/16/14   Leighton Steward: Obama's Fuel Efficiency Plan Is 'Bad News'
2/25/14   Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears
2/19/14   Breaking News
5/8/13   Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide
9/26/12   More Evidence Against a Methane Time Bomb
9/10/12   Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast
8/14/12   Hansen Is Wrong
7/24/12   Illiteracy at NASA
6/29/12   NRC Sea Level Rise Scare: Losing Sight of the Science
6/22/12   Not So Hot in East China
6/18/12   NASA Must Stop Global Warming Alarmism (570 News Radio)
6/4/12   Historical Imagery of Greenland Glaciers Lessens Sea Level Rise Alarm
5/18/12   CO2 Not to Blame for Southwest Droughts?
5/14/12   Future Southwest Drought in Doubt?
5/9/12   No sea level rise catastrophe?
5/3/12   Antarctica's ice is melting from warm water below
5/2/12   Plant life changes 'underestimated'
5/1/12   Global What?
4/27/12   EPA’S Toxic Science
4/20/12   For Wheat and Rice, CO2 is Nice
4/10/12   Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
4/10/12   Former NASA Scientists and Astronauts Blast Agency for Disregarding Climate Change Evidence
3/29/12   Acclimation to Ocean Acidification: Give It Some Time
3/26/12   Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?
3/22/12   Tropical Forests Rejoice!
   Next >>
Search Archives:
Print  Print    Email  Email    RSS Feed  RSS Feed

** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (, or CO2 Science (