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

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:
2/27/12   Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and High Climate Sensitivity
2/21/12   Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
2/17/12   STEWARD: Voodoo Environomics
2/15/12   Flowers Love CO2
2/6/12   The Sun: O Inconstant Star!
1/29/12   Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
1/27/12   No Need to Panic About Global Warming
1/25/12   Dr. David Evans: The Skeptic's Case
1/10/12   Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape?
1/7/12   Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a Grain of Salt
1/3/12   Antarctic Temperature Trends
5/26/11   No Long-term Trend in Atlantic Hurricane Numbers
9/1/10   Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
5/21/10   Prominent Princeton Scientist Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress
11/4/09   Plants need more CO2, not less
8/28/09   Utah governor says climate change debate not over
8/13/09   Earth’s Warming Rate Overestimated
8/13/09   U.N. Crying “Wolf” on Climate Change?
8/11/09   No Influence of ‘Global Warming’ on Atlantic Hurricane Numbers
8/6/09   2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecast Lowered
8/6/09   Cosmic Rays Have Significant Climate Effect
8/6/09   Nobel Halo Fades Fast for Climate Change Panel
8/6/09   Pine trees grow better under elevated CO2 conditions
8/6/09   Scores of German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims
8/3/09   Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids
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 (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).

More Videos & Media ...

More CO2 Facts

Read a series of facts to dispell the myths that address the hysteria of too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere



Plants need CO2 addresses the myth that purveyed the public dialog around CO2