Happy New Year. It’s Worse Than We Thought.

December 31, 2013

Oh Crap.
New research from the University of New South Wales discussed by study author Steven Sherwood, above.

Sherwood’s paper shoots more holes into lingering hopes that climate sensitivity, the amount of warming we expect for a given rise in CO2, might be lower than we thought – that maybe temp rises could be more moderate in the future.
One of the last, lingering, tattered bastions of climate denial has been that, somehow, there might be some kind of moderating feedback in the system, that, as climate warmed and brought more moisture into the atmosphere, more clouds might form, reflecting heat and moderating the changes. This has been the hobby horse for the Richard Lindzens and Roy Spencers of the world.
That hope is being steadily crushed as we learn more.


The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of , the role of  and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

“Our research has shown  indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” said lead author from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.

“When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global  will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.”


The research indicates that fewer clouds form as the planet warms, meaning less sunlight is reflected back into space, driving temperatures up further still. The way clouds affect global warming has been the biggest mystery surrounding future climate change.

Professor Steven Sherwood, at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, who led the new work, said: “This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes and second by strongly discounting the lowest estimates of future global warming in favour of the higher and more damaging estimates.”

“4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous,” Sherwood told the Guardian. “For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet“, with sea levels rising by many metres as a result.

The research is a “big advance” that halves the uncertainty about how much warming is caused by rises in carbon emissions, according to scientists commenting on the study, published in the journal Nature. Hideo Shiogama and Tomoo Ogura, at Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies, said the explanation of how fewer clouds form as the world warms was “convincing”, and agreed this indicated future climate would be greater than expected. But they said more challenges lay ahead to narrow down further the projections of future temperatures.

Below, Andrew Dessler describes earlier research on the climate sensitivity question.

National Geographic:

“This degree of warming would make large swaths of the tropics uninhabitable by humans and cause most forests at low and middle latitudes to change to something else,” says Steven Sherwood of Australia’s University of New South Wales, who led the study.

The changes, Sherwood says, would take Earth “back to the climate of the dinosaurs or worse, and in a geologically minuscule period of time—less than the lifetime of a single tree.”

“It is an elegant and important paper,” says Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

The finding matters, he adds, because a 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had widened its range of climate sensitivity estimates to embrace the low estimates for how high temperatures will rise by the year 2100. (See also: “Global Warming Report: 5 Big Takeaways.”)

“I argued that the IPCC had erred,” Mann says, based on historical climate patterns. Sherwood and his colleagues, he says, “provide a rigorous physical explanation of just why.”

Climate Sensitivity Settled?

“So can we declare the long-running debate about climate sensitivity to be over?” say climate scientists Hideo Shiogama and Tomoo Oguraof Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies, in a commentary accompanying the study.

“Unfortunately not,” they conclude. “Sherwood and colleagues’ study represents a big advance, but questions persist.”

For one thing, better estimates of ocean cloud cover explain only about half of the variation in climate sensitivity estimates. Uncertainty over the cooling effects of ice cover and clouds over the continents remain.

But Mann argues that the paper adds to growing concerns about the “uncertainty” in climate change science being more bad than good for humanity: “We should be taking into account worst-case scenarios when we attempt to gauge the risks posed by climate change.”

Below, Kevin Trenberth on climate sensitivity.


32 Responses to “Happy New Year. It’s Worse Than We Thought.”

  1. Sometimes a simpler, shorter graphic message might help get through the denial clouds … a way to explain climate change in just 35 words, accompanied by a 52 second video or slightly longer for those not time pressed

    How to Explain Global Warming in Just 35 Words


  2. John Doyle Says:

    I came to this site from “The Conversation” article where i missed out on being able to comment.
    I refer to the ideas of John Hamaker, 1914-1994.
    He posits global warming to be a precursor to another ice age.

    I don’t know the nuances but basically vegetation drives CO2 production.
    [without discounting volcanoes etc]
    Starting the cycle at the point of glacier retreat the vegetation rapidly recovers to clothe former barren ground with forests. These absorb carbon and the climate starts to cool. Forests grow rapidly because glacial till is very rich in minerals, so very fertile.
    As the interglacial period ages, the fertility of the soil declines and the forests gradually die off returning CO2 to the atmosphere. This rise in warming affects cloud formation and precipitation which further impoverishes the soil. But, and this is where the research above is interesting, the circulation pattern he said takes moisture into the high latitudes where it falls as snow, adding to glaciers and initiating a new ice age.

    I’d be interested to know how the latest research impacts on this theory?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      since the 1970s, the most credible theory of ice ages deals with changes in earth’s orbit and axial tilt.

      • John Doyle Says:

        I don’t think he discounted what the sun can do. I believe you likely need more than one trigger to set off such an event as an ice age. It’s an additive process.
        The glacial 100,000 year cycle is a recent geological phenomenon, and it seems it hasn’t been like that throughout geological time, but the Earth’s orbit etc will have constantly varied just as today, so it presupposes other factors, of which Hamaker’s proposal is one.
        Anyway thanks for answering.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          this abbreviated talk by hansen, 8 minutes, gives some clarity.

          the more recent 100,000 year cycle did not kick in till co2 levels reached a low enough level.
          some scientists will say the at the closing of the isthmus of panama had something to do with kicking the cycle into gear, by diverting the gulf stream and large amounts of warmth and water vapor to northern latitudes where it added to snow cover.

          • John Doyle Says:

            There you go, another factor outside the sun’s influence, and an important one.
            A bit like life on Earth. It took a sequence of 23 coincidences before it happened.
            Astronomical odds, but it worked!
            Thanks again for the James Hanson video.

  3. gbell12 Says:

    Aren’t we done putting any faith in “models”?

    Here’s a statement from a real climate scientist – the one who runs the famous UAH satellite. Don’t skip, but if you have to, look at the chart on page 13.

    Click to access ChristyJR_SenateEPW_120801.pdf

  4. […] is low: How sensitive is our climate? More on debunking "low climate sensitivity": Happy New Year. It?s Worse Than We Thought. | Climate Denial Crock of the Week http://www.nature.com/nature/journal…ture12829.html NASA Study: Climate Sensitivity Is High […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: