Crisis over?

Anthony Watts is reporting a new paper that puts the climate's no-feedback sensitivity to CO2 at 0.45°C per doubling, less than half that of previous estimates. Interesting stuff.

Comments

[Manfred]

And this is the small part in climate science that was, according to the IPCC, well understood.

Now EVERYTHING (CO2 forcing, sensitivity (incl. clouds, ocean dynamics, sea ice, biosphere), temperature before satellite data, aerosols) appears to be more or less unknown

[BBD]

Simon Hopkinson

Thanks - interesting. FF does not crash prior to this problem, rather it loads/terminates normally. So not sure about the explanation that has been given to you. Will look in to it later this evening (oh, joy).

[Harry Dale Huffman]

The correct answer is 0.0 °C for a doubling of CO2. Comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus (96.5% CO2) and Earth (0.04%), at equal pressures over the range of Earth atmosphere from 1,000 mb down to 200 mb (encompassing the Earth's troposphere) shows that the only difference between the two planetary atmospheres is due precisely to their relative distances from the Sun. That is, based on their mean distances from the Sun, the temperature in the Venus atmosphere at a given pressure level should be 1.176 times the Earth temperature at the same pressure level, and the actual data essentially gives just this result (except within the clouds of Venus, where Venus is slightly cooler, not warmer, than 1.176 times the Earth). See "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" on my site, to learn more. There is no greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC scientists, on either planet. The Venus data has been available to Hansen and other scientists for almost 20 years, which means they are all incompetent. From the time I first was made aware of the possibility of comparing the detailed Venus and Earth atmospheres, it took me 2 months to consider doing it myself (I am not in climate science, but an independent research physicist), and just one day to actually do my own simple analysis and uncover this ticking time bomb underlying current climate science. Not only is there no greenhouse effect as currently theorized in climate science, but the Venus/Earth data also definitively indicates that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, not by first warming of the surface. I submitted this analysis to "Physics Today" to get it before the whole science community, for open public airing, but have of course gotten no response.

[Martin A]

@Phillip Bratby We used very complex thermal-hydraulics models at work.

Nuculer?

[Bruce of Newcastle]

Lindzen & Choi 2009: 0.5 C
Spencer & Braswell 2010: 0.6 C

Both of these are empirical measurements, not determined by model, although S&B cross check via a model and against the IPCC's gaggle of GCM's (which all fail miserably).

At 0.6 C the pCO2 would have to rise by 10x to squeeze out 2 C of warming. Not going to happen chaps.

Several other studies have found similar values for sensitivity 0.4-0.6 C but I haven't looked at those papers yet.

[Scottish Sceptic]

Because of the huge interest in this paper, I’ve delved further into the subject to see if I can make more sense of it.

It’s a long post so for a full analysis please see my blog:

http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/how-much-co2-really-contributes-to-gw-further-analysis/

Conclusion
From this investigation, the main reason for a difference in calculated warming appears to be the more sophisticated modelling of trace gas absorption using the improved ability of the HITRAN database.Moreover as they also model the effect of temperature and pressure(?), the absorption spectra will change for each layer of the atmosphere being modelled even if they contain the same gas proportions.

However, whilst the paper mentions cloud and H20, there is no explicit mention of feedback such as additional atmospheric H20 and there is no reason to suggest from the known background of the Author that he would have incorporated such feedback which would seem to be outside his field of expertise.

[Atomic Hairdryer]

Re Scottish

Please check your posting. Using H20 instead of H2O doesn't help credibility and it's a simple error to catch.

[Scottish Sceptic]

Atomic Hairdryer. Thanks for the help re dihydrogen monoxide!

[hro001]

@Svein:

please apply some elements of scientific thinking, rigour and analysis

A very noble thought. And if you're interested in how the leadership of the IPCC applies such elements, you might want to take a look at A merchant in Venice: Pachauri's "vision" for AR5