The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
It's gettin' hot in here
Global warming
Globalwarming2.svg
Feverish dreams
Hot-headed goons
I suspect this paper will be hailed on skeptical blogs everywhere but dismissed in the scientific community. The part of the paper that’s right is not new, and the part that’s new is not right.
Andrew DesslerWikipedia's W.svg[1]

The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity is an article authored by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry, published in June 2018 in the Journal of Climate, operated by the American Meteorological Society.[2] The article asserts that the global temperature will increase by by 30-45% less than predicted (by 1.33-1.66°C), based on the actual warming as compared to the IPCC's models (which predict 1.9-3.3°C of warming).

Coverage[edit]

The article received coverage on all the usual "climate skeptic" sites: the Cornwall Alliance (which started it all),[3] Reason magazine,[4] Cato Institute,[5] Heartland Institute,[6] CNS News,[7] Investor's Business Daily,[8] Roy Spencer's blog,[9] Watts Up With That,[10] Climate Audit,[11] PatriotPost.us,[12] TheGlobalDispatch.com,[13] cliscep.com,[14] ClimateTheTruth.com,[15] FabiusMaximus.com,[16] Longroom,[17] and both of the author's blogs.[18][19]

Reality[edit]

In short: the Lewis and Curry models don't account for different warming between different locations.

In fact, the estimation method used by the authors has already been discounted by other scientists.[20] Lewis and Curry's 2018 article is itself an updated version of their 2015 article, "The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates",[21] (commonly called "LC15") which was panned in the blogosphere by Richard Miller[22] and Roz Pidcock.[23][24]

In both their 2015 and 2018 papers, Lewis and Curry used an "energy budget" or "energy balance" model to estimate climate sensitivity (the warming that one would expect given a certain change in, for example, carbon dioxide concentration). This method has been critiqued by numerous papers, such as Marvel et al. 2018,[25] Knutti et al. 2017,[26] Richardson et al. 2015,[27] Armour 2016,[28] Richardson et al. 2016,[29] Cawley et al. 2015,[30] and Shindell 2014.[31]

In particular, Dessler et al. 2018 responds to Lewis and Curry's 2015 paper (and others) directly.[32] Dessler et al. 2018 already critiqued the methodological upgrade made between the 2015 and 2018 Curry and Lewis papers. In the 2018 paper, Curry and Lewis assert that something Dessler describes as "pattern effects" (ie, the different warming in different areas) doesn't impact their results. However, as Dessler notes, this is not substantiated by the literature, which seems to suggest that pattern effects have a significant effect on energy budget models. As a result, Curry and Lewis felt that Dessler et al. 2018's critque merited a response,[33][34] which Dessler has also responded to.[35]

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Twitter [a w]
  2. Lewis, N., & Curry, J. (2018). The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity [a w]. Journal of Climate, (2018). DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 (PDF)
  3. Climate Alarmist Consensus—About to Shatter? [a w], cornwallalliance.org
  4. Global Warming Likely to Be 30 to 45 Percent Lower Than Climate Models Project [a w], Reason.com
  5. Some More Insensitivity about Global Warming [a w], Cato.org
  6. IS CLIMATE ALARMIST CONSENSUS ABOUT TO SHATTER? [a w], Heartland Institute
  7. Climate Alarmist Consensus Is About to Be Shattered [a w], CNSNews.com
  8. Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See [a w], Investors.com
  9. New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low [a w], drroyspencer.com
  10. New data imply lower climate sensitivity, thus slower global warming [a w], wattsupwiththat.com
  11. The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity [a w], ClimateAudit.org
  12. Global Warming Not as Severe as Climate Models Project [a w], PatriotPost.us
  13. American Meteorological Society’s new study on global warming reduces forecasts by 30 to 45% [a w], TheGlobalDispatch.com
  14. New paper by Lewis and Curry [a w], cliscep.com
  15. Models Wrong on Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response [a w], ClimateTheTruth.com
  16. A look at the workings of Propaganda Inc. [a w]
  17. Climate Alarmist Consensus Is About to Be Shattered [a w]
  18. Impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity [a w], JudithCurry.com
  19. The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity [a w], NicholasLewis.org
  20. Climate deniers indulge in wishful thinking (climate consensus is NOT shattering) [a w]
  21. Lewis, N., & Curry, J. A. (2015). The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates [a w]. Climate dynamics, 45(3-4), 1009.
  22. Climate response estimates from Lewis & Curry [a w], RealClimate.org
  23. Your questions on climate sensitivity answered [a w], CarbonBrief.org
  24. Your questions on climate sensitivity answered [a w], SkepticalScience.com
  25. Marvel, K., Pincus, R., Schmidt, G. A., & Miller, R. L. (2018). Internal variability and disequilibrium confound estimates of climate sensitivity from observations [a w]. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(3), 1595-1601.
  26. Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017). Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity [a w]. Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 727.
  27. Richardson, M., Hausfather, Z., Nuccitelli, D. A., Rice, K., & Abraham, J. P. (2015). Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results [a w]. Science bulletin, 60(15), 1370-1377.
  28. Armour, K. C. (2016). Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise [a w]. Nature Climate Change, 6(10), 896.
  29. Richardson, M., Cowtan, K., Hawkins, E., & Stolpe, M. B. (2016). Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth [a w]. Nature Climate Change, 6(10), 931.
  30. Cawley, G. C., Cowtan, K., Way, R. G., Jacobs, P., & Jokimäki, A. (2015). On a minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity [a w]. Ecological modelling, 297, 20-25.
  31. Shindell, D. T. (2014). Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity [a w]. Nature Climate Change, 4(4), 274.
  32. Dessler, A. E., Mauritsen, T., & Stevens, B. (2018). The influence of internal variability on Earth's energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity [a w]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(7), 5147-5155.
  33. Why Dessler et al.’s critique of energy-budget climate sensitivity estimation is mistaken [a w], JudithCurry.com
  34. Why Dessler et al.’s critique of energy-budget climate sensitivity estimation is mistaken [a w], NicholasLewis.org
  35. Tweet [a w]