Explaining Otto

The Otto et al paper, along with all the other observational estimates of low climate sensitivity, has been a bit of a bore for upholders of the climate consensus, distracting them from the daily grind of generating ever more more outlandish estimates of future warming and ever-more scary tales of the impacts.

Riding to the rescue is Drew Shindell of NASA GISS, who has analysed the models and found that he can explain the discrepancy with the observations:

Understanding climate sensitivity is critical to projecting climate change in response to a given forcing scenario. Recent analyses have suggested that transient climate sensitivity is at the low end of the present model range taking into account the reduced warming rates during the past 10–15 years during which forcing has increased markedly. In contrast, comparisons of modelled feedback processes with observations indicate that the most realistic models have higher sensitivities. Here I analyse results from recent climate modelling intercomparison projects to demonstrate that transient climate sensitivity to historical aerosols and ozone is substantially greater than the transient climate sensitivity to CO₂. This enhanced sensitivity is primarily caused by more of the forcing being located at Northern Hemisphere middle to high latitudes where it triggers more rapid land responses and stronger feedbacks. I find that accounting for this enhancement largely reconciles the two sets of results, and I conclude that the lowest end of the range of transient climate response to CO₂ in present models and assessments (<1.3 °C) is very unlikely.

scary stories and ever

Comments

[Mark T]

No, EM, it says we are simply tired of your thread derailments. You lack the requisite knowledge to debate even the most basic of scientific principles. As a result, you come across as an annoying parrot. Some of us are truly interested in the science, or lack thereof, not listening to some nitwit blathering on about his belly button.

Mark

[Mark T]

The difference with Nick, however, is that he actually appears to have the requisite knowledge to know better. That makes his twisting and turning rather disingenuous. At least you don't know any better. Yeah, a small difference, but worth noting.

Mark

[Drapetomania]

"That makes his twisting and turning rather disingenuous. At least you don't know any better. Yeah, a small difference, but worth noting."Mark
Mar 11, 2014 at 4:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark T

Mark, the only thing you are noting..is that you are noting your own claim. :)
Evidence please or back into the box with ya..

[hunter]

EM,
You are one of the better AGW apologists who posts here. Re-read your recent stuff. You are drifting close to the incomprehensible side of the issue in flailing around trying to defend high sensitivity.