Climate change models underestimate likely temperature rise, report shows

[IDemo]

The Earth’s climate is far more sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought, heightening the likelihood of a 4C temperature rise by 2100, new Australian-led research of cloud systems has found.

The study, published in Nature, provides new understanding on the role of cloud formation in climate sensitivity – one of the key uncertainties in predictions of climate change.

Report authors Steven Sherwood, Sandrine Bony and Jean-Louis Dufresne found climate models which show a low global temperature response to CO2 emissions do not factor in all the water vapour released into the atmosphere.

Models typically simulate water vapour as rising to 15km and forming clouds, rather than updraughts of water vapour that rise only a few kilometres and pull away the cloud-forming vapour. This prediction of cloud cover is important because clouds reflect sunlight, lessening the impact of global warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/01/climate-change-models-underestimate-likely-temperature-rise-report-shows

[AverageJoe90]

1. Sorry to say this, but more, or perhaps, *better* research is *clearly* needed.

The key giveaway that this study was rather badly flawed was their inferrence that climate sensitivity per doubling was more than 3*C (up to 5*!) just because of the added water vapor in their study. Sorry, folks, but it's rather clear the people who conducted this study didn't do that great of a job and the official climate models continue to be closer to reality than any others at this point.

[IDemo]

2. I envy you

You are able to analyze in under five minutes the results of a study done by a consortium of multiple universities and climate agencies.

You're clearly *The Man*!

“Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Prof. Sherwood.

[AverageJoe90]

3. Unfortunately, all it required was some critical thinking and prior knowledge of other studies......

beforehand. (And yes, I watched the video, too.)

Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,”

And in fact, so far, it's actually the opposite that has been true over the past 30 years, as far as it's been observed. So Sherwood got it *completely* ass-backwards in this particular regard, I'm sorry to say.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Your argument is "I know they're wrong"

You don't even try to give reasons. You just think that someone reading DU will take you at your own estimation of your superiority to climate scientists in published, peer-reviewed papers. Your ego appears to be the biggest thing in your world.

[AverageJoe90]

17. Honestly, the reason I rarely link to stuff anymore.....

Is because there have been *many* times that when I do back up a point with solid info, one of more of our climate doomers have swooped in and said, "That's not good enough!", or "You're lying", or even claimed (whether dishonestly or just out of ignorance) that I was a climate denier, a "minimizer", etc.

And frankly, if no one bothers to read the sources, why bother putting them up in the first place? Try to imagine yourself in my shoes, Muriel. Then come back to me.

[CreekDog]

36. don't mistake intelligence for having canned talking points

to deal with every mention of climate change evidence.
















(ps-i get that you were being sarcastic)

[Viking12]

4. You should submit a Comment to Nature

Oh wait, they don't publish asshat, climate-denier zombie talking points. Never mind.

[AverageJoe90]

5. Well, well, if it isn't one of my old E & E stalkers.

How you doing, bro? Still up to your old tricks, I see(falsehoods and all!).

In any case, your B.S. isn't working here; maybe you should go try your provocative false-accusation shtick elsewhere, eh?

[Viking12]

6. Every word in my post is true.

..and don't flatter yourself with the 'stalker' crap. If you didn't continually idiotic crap, a) you'd still be allowed to post in e&e, and b) I'd never give you a second of my time.

[AverageJoe90]

7. "Every word in my post is true." Not even close, amigo. Not even close.

a) you'd still be allowed to post in e&e, and b) I'd never give you a second of my time.

a.) wasn't true, by the way(because the points I was making were anything *but* idiotic, thank you) and I doubt b.) is either.

I get that you disagree with my point of view, btw. And you have that right. But I know for a fact that my point here was quite valid. Whether or not you accept that truth is up to you, but the truth it most certainly is.

[joshcryer]

10. Well, certainly more research is needed because we keep getting it wrong.

That is, we keep underestimating.

That should be call for more research and some bit of trepidation since clearly we keep getting it wrong and new papers every now and again just show how wrong we are.

And every time we're found to be wrong about the overall impacts, it's because we underestimate.

[AverageJoe90]

11. "That is, we keep underestimating." Not really.

And every time we're found to be wrong about the overall impacts, it's because we underestimate.

No, not even close, and if anything at all, we've been OVERestimating quite a few things(not everything, to be fair, but still quite a few!), and yes, that does include short-term climate sensitivity, as the records have clearly shown.

[joshcryer]

14. "Climate change models underestimate likely temperature rise"

That's literally the title of the OP you are responding in. Literally. It is literally the title. In literally the most literal sense of literal.

[Systematic Chaos]

15. Fer sure! Like, literally! Gag me with a literal spoon!

Do those dishes, and literally clean the literal litter out of the literal cat box!

[AverageJoe90]

16. And again, the problem is, they really *haven't* so far.

And aren't that likely to do so in the future, either(contrary to what doomer contrarians will likely insist). Right now, the most pessimistic estimates for climate sensitivity are in the neighborhood of 3*C; not exactly something I'd hope for, but a very real possibility that's been backed up by quite a few studies so far.....although the most reliable estimates are in somewhere about 2.5*C per doubling at this point.

[joshcryer]

18. So you're saying the OP is wrong?

That climate models have not underestimated?

[AverageJoe90]

19. What I intended to say was, it's been more complicated than that.

Yes, to be fair, some things were underestimated(Arctic ice melt being the top factor in this regard); but quite a few things weren't really underestimated at all.(and some of these were even slightly overestimated to a degree.) Temperature rise from the '70s until the present was definitely in the latter category(though here, more of a case of roughly on target than overestimated, to be truthful). And in all likelihood, we're not liable to be much off target(in either direction) in the future, either, barring some truly unlikely circumstances.

[joshcryer]

20. Well I'd say temperature rise is the most important thing.

If we're not going to be much off target in the future I'd say 4C is pretty bad as it is.

[AverageJoe90]

21. Well, yeah, I can't (and won't) disagree with that. nt

[CreekDog]

23. when the oceans have evaporated, you'll finally be convinced

lot of good it will do you at that point.

[AverageJoe90]

24. Did you mean that literally, btw? nt

[CreekDog]

25. no i didn't

but ironically, that's probably what it would take to convince you.

[AverageJoe90]

26. Well, given that you're a doomer.....I couldn't help but wonder. nt

[CreekDog]

27. You call me a "doomer". What is the term for someone who...

...spends all their posts saying global climate change isn't that bad?

maybe you're never convinced it's that bad because instead of reading things that actually say that it's that bad, you spend all your time posting that you're unconvinced that it's that bad.

[AverageJoe90]

28. "What is the term for someone who spends all their posts saying climate change isn't that bad?"

Depends on the perspective, really. On the level of "bad" according to mainstream science? Or that of climate doomers and fringe elements(i.e. Kevin Anderson, Guy McPherson, etc.)?

maybe you're never convinced it's that bad because instead of reading things that actually say that it's that bad, you spend all your time posting that you're unconvinced that it's that bad.

See, I actually *have* done some reading, including of some sources popular with your type. And that's the problem with your theory right there, CD.

[LanternWaste]

30. Much as when we resort to petulance and call others "doomers"

"Depends on the perspective, really..."

Much as when we resort to grade school petulance and call others who do not share our opinions, "doomers".

(Insert distinction without a difference here for effective self-validation).

[AverageJoe90]

32. Well, TBH, I've been on the *receiving* end of the very same myself, a fair bit.

Much as when we resort to grade school petulance and call others who do not share our opinions,

I myself have been (falsely) labelled a "denier" or a "minimizer" simply for agreeing more with the mainstream(IPCC, Andy Revkin, etc.) than the "Chicken Little" crowd(Kevin Anderson, David Wasdell, Guy McPherson, etc.) by certain folks on here, so I know how that feels; so maybe you can understand a little better why I get a little impatient sometimes.

[11 Bravo]

8. Oh, Yeah? Well, I just went outside, and it's COLD. In DECEMBER. So Global Warming is clearly ...

a MYTH. Rush told me! So there!

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. It's January, but it's still true, there's cold spread over half the friggin' globe! n/t

[11 Bravo]

22. Damn, I was sitting there watching a New Year's Day Bowl game and typed that it's December!

It won't be much longer until I can to hide my own Easter eggs.

[AverageJoe90]

12. Also, it snowed in Texas last Christmas. Therefore.....

ACC is just a goddaim hoax created by dem evul libruls to create dat Communist utopia they's been secretly talkin' and hawin' about.....'cuz Glenn Beck told me so! It's da twoof!


(In case some folks didn't get the point.)

[CreekDog]

29. you've junked up this thread with climate change denial nonsense

if it were a job, you might be eligible for a bonus.

[AverageJoe90]

31. You do realize I was being *quite* sarcastic with that, right?(hint: it was obvious)

Or do you just not give a shit?

[CreekDog]

33. i was characterizing what you did to the thread in a dozen posts

don't try to pretend you didn't junk up the thread because one of your posts was sarcastic joshing.

you junked up the climate change debate in this thread rendering it worthless.

you ended your week on a successful note.

congratulations.

i realize your larger goal of not having us do anything about climate change is still not fully realized.

[AverageJoe90]

34. You really don't get it, do you?

i realize your larger goal of not having us do anything about climate change is still not fully realized.

If you really do believe this line of crapola, then frankly, you don't know jack about me, bud.

[CreekDog]

35. well, we should wait until all the evidence conclusively proves you want to deal with climate change

but until then, let's not get hasty and just assume that's the case.

[joshcryer]

37. It's easy enough to know your position.

[AverageJoe90]

38. Then you should be able to understand where I come from.

But here's the thing: you don't. You never did; because you let your doomerist ideology cloud your thinking, instead of actually thinking critically. That was, and is, the main problem, pal.

[joshcryer]

39. Wind, natural gas, fracking, yes, I know where you come from.

You don't actually care very much about mitigating climate change. That is fine. If the US is going to be energy self-sufficient, that is a good geopolitical goal (it means no war for oil). It doesn't address the catastrophic effects that CO2 is having on our atmosphere and environment.

But nevermind, we have geoengineering for that.