This indicates a median value (ECS ~1.64) which is slightly higher than AR5's lower limit of 1.5. I understand that the AR5 lower limit was reduced compared to AR4's lower limit of 2.0 due to mounting pressure within the community. There is ever growing evidence that previous climate sensitivity estimates were grossly overestimated. I imagine that Curry's and Lewis' names on the paper will not be well received by some.Here is a brand new peer reviewed paper that addresses climate sensitivity to CO2. It is to be published in Climate Dynamics this month. Below is a link to the paper.
http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
Briefly, the paper uses data from the IPCC 5th AWG to refine estimates of climate sensitivity and shows that climate is less sensitive to CO2 than has been estimated.
Certainly, climate is affected by CO2, but it appears to not be as much as expected.
This indicates a value (~1.33) which is slightly lower than AR5's lower limit of 1.5. I understand that the AR5 lower limit was reduced compared to AR4's lower limit of 2.0 due to mounting pressure within the community. There is ever growing evidence that previous climate sensitivity estimates were grossly overestimated. I imagine that Curry's and Lewis' names on the paper will not be well received by some.
I understand that the AR5 lower limit was reduced compared to AR4's lower limit of 2.0 due to mounting pressure within the community
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2011 impact factor of 4.602, ranking it 5th out of 71 journals in the category "Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences".[1]
ECS ~1.64
How can volcanism not be a factor when they can't even predict with any certainty a volcanic eruption? Its just an inconvenient variable for them so they find a way to put it under the rug.
How can volcanism not be a factor when they can't even predict with any certainty a volcanic eruption? Its just an inconvenient variable for them so they find a way to put it under the rug.
Do you enjoy fabrication and lying?Its just an inconvenient variable for them so they [who?] find a way to put it under the rug [nope].
In terms of greenhouse gases, I already pre-empted such on the previous page:How can volcanism not be a factor when they can't even predict with any certainty a volcanic eruption?
Now as far as volcanic emissions having a more significant effect upon climate, which is cooling rather than warming:Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview [USGS]
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
..
CO2 emission events
Mount St. Helens, 18 May 1980 0.01 Gt
Mount Pinatubo, 15 June 1991 0.05 Gt
Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2 3500
2010 anthropogenic CO2 multiplier (ACM)**
135 1900 ACM
18 1950 ACM 38
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism 2.7
The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact. Sulfur dioxide from the large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time.
For more information about sulfur in the atmosphere, please see Volcanic Sulfur Aerosols Affect Climate and the Earth's Ozone Layer.
While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. For example, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.
Here is a brand new peer reviewed paper that addresses climate sensitivity to CO2. It is to be published in Climate Dynamics this month. Below is a link to the paper.
http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf
Briefly, the paper uses data from the IPCC 5th AWG to refine estimates of climate sensitivity and shows that climate is less sensitive to CO2 than has been estimated.
Certainly, climate is affected by CO2, but it appears to not be as much as expected.
Your point?
False equivalence FTL.Probably the same point you made here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36743627&postcount=5
Yeah...bringing the credibility of a oped/blog into question from a notoriously liberal media outlet is somehow equivalent to questioning the credibility of two "deniers" who's paper is peer-reviewed and published by one of the world's most elite climate journals is pure hypocrisy. Tell me something...did your lobotomy hurt very much?Hypocrisy at its finest!
Yeah...bringing the credibility of a oped/blog into question from a notoriously liberal media outlet is somehow equivalent to questioning the credibility of two "deniers" who's paper is peer-reviewed and published by one of the world's most elite climate journals is pure hypocrisy. Tell me something...did your lobotomy hurt very much?
Do you enjoy fabrication and lying?
In terms of greenhouse gases, I already pre-empted such on the previous page:
Now as far as volcanic emissions having a more significant effect upon climate, which is cooling rather than warming:
What other branch of science has only computer models to run experiments on hmm?
If you are doing and experiment to test specific things you want to remove as many variables as you can so you are only testing what you want to be.
I don't think GW/CC will cause the extinction of Humanity. However, in case you haven't noticed, Living Standards have already been fucked up by other means. That said, dealing with this issue doesn't need to cause much decrease in those standards. Not dealing with the issue will lower those standards, guaranteed.