CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'

BBC News ^ | 25 November 2011 | Jennifer Carpenter

[Pharmboy]

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

The results are published in Science.

Previous climate models have tended to used meteorological measurements from the past 150 years to estimate the climate's sensitivity to rising CO2.

From these models, scientists find it difficult to narrow their projections down to a single figure with any certainty, and instead project a range of temperatures that they expect, given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

The new analysis, which incorporates palaeoclimate data into existing models, attempts to project future temperatures with a little more certainty.

Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US, explained that by looking at surface temperatures during the most recent ice age - 21,000 years ago - when humans were having no impact on global temperatures, he, and his colleagues show that this period was not as cold as previous estimates suggest.

[mazda77]

But the next sentence goes to show they still need to float the idea that the sky is indeed still falling.

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

But most would agree that any lack of significant change would universally be reported as "unexpected".

[r-q-tek86]

Ping

[txrefugee]

Historically, a consensus of scientists saw no value in doctors washing their hands when going from patient to patient in hospitals.

The doctor who tried to make hand washing mandatory was reviled and died a broken man.

So much for “scientific consensus.” Putting one’s faith in human consensus is often disappointing as “consensus” changes.

[BuffaloJack]

CO2 increase isn’t the cause of warming. It is the result of warming.

[ZULU]

Thanks Pharmboy. It would appear the palaeoclimatologists really need to better refine their predictions of future CO2 effects before they send us back to the Stone Age living in caves and eating raw meat (or tofu) and using primitive technologies.

One more study which debunks Algore’s “scientific” method and send “Cap and Trade” back to the closet the Luddites were stuffed into.

[Mr. K]

This is ALL BULL$HIT because of one very important reason- SIGNIFICANT FIGURES

If you measure with a yardstick, it is impossiblke to quote measurment size in FEET or INCHES.

You can say 1.5 yards (approx.) but you can not accurately say 1.5005 yards, or 1 yard, 1 ft, 6.5 inches. That is too many significant figures.

The resolution is not there to make such fine measurements

Similarly, If you only have TREE RINGS to go by, there is no way possible to say that temperatues are 0.5 degrees warmer now.

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

[GopherIt]

Thanks Pharmboy. Have you ever seen a serious study using these models to predict the effect of estimated CO2 abatement resulting from proposed interventions?

[FourPeas]

Whether these results mean that the global temperatures will be less responsive to falling CO2 is unclear. "I don't think we know that, to be honest," remarked Dr Rosell-Mele.

So the science :isn't: settled?

It's time to put Algore on suicide watch.

[aculeus]

They have begun to walk it back.

They should try running.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Funny how these errors when discovered show that the errors were ALWAYS IN THE AGW ALARMISTS favor isn’t it?