Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Arm wrestlers
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

'Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high'


Posted by Coby Beck (Guest Contributor) at 9:41 AM on 11 Nov 2006

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Taking into account the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature, the 35 percent increase we have already seen in CO2 concentrations represents about three-quarters of the total forcing to be expected from a CO2 doubling. Since we have warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far, we should only expect about 0.3 degrees more for a doubling from pre-industrial levels, so about 1 degree total, not 3 degrees as the scientists predict. Clearly the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is much too high.

Answer: Even without addressing the numbers in this argument, there is a fundamental flaw in its reasoning.

We don't yet know exactly how much the climate will warm from the CO2 already in the air. There is a delay of several decades between forcing and final response. Until an equilibrium temperature is reached, present day observations will not tell us the exact value of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.

The reason for this is primarily the large heat capacity of the oceans. The enhanced greenhouse effect from higher CO2 levels is indeed trapping energy in the climate system according to expectations, but the enormous quantity of water on earth is absorbing most of the resulting heat. Due to water's high heat capacity, this absorbed energy shows up as only a modest ocean warming, which in turn dampens the temperature change on land and lowers the global average trend.

This is commonly referred to as the climate system's thermal inertia. According to model experiments and consistent with data from past climate changes, this inertia results in a lag of several decades between the imposition of a radiative forcing and a final equilibrium temperature.

Now let's look at a couple of further details. CO2 is not the only factor affecting global temperature. There is a phenomenon called "global dimming" counteracting greenhouse gas warming. Global dimming refers to the blocking of incoming sunlight by particulate pollution in the troposphere and airplane contrails in the stratosphere. It is not a well quantified effect, but it may well be masking a great deal more warming; it is definitely masking some.

This is just one example of why we cannot attribute global temperature trends entirely to CO2 -- the same mistaken premise that fuels arguments about the mid-century cooling trend.

I believe it was Richard Lindzen who first made this argument [PDF] about climate sensitivity. The numbers he uses don't add up. A 35 percent increase in CO2 should correspond to 43 percent of the forcing from two times CO2 (ln(1.35)/ln(2)= 43%), which is not three-fourths.

The original article for this Skeptic Guide entry had an extremely interesting discussion under it, for anyone interested.

Suppose you're right

Lets acknowledge but ignore the impact of other GHGs (or rather pretend that they behave as if they were just an additional amount of CO2, which they don't, but which is close enough for purposes of this discussion).

Suppose that thermal inertia and dimming are hiding a large amount of global warming. Suppose fraction X of the total warming is represented by the 0.7 degrees.

Then the total additional impact of 580ppm CO2 would then be roughly 0.7*((1-0.43)/0.43)/X or 0.928/X.

If X is 0.6 (corresponding to a 40% masking effect, substantially LESS than most climatologists seem to be predicting, but plausible) then thats less than 1.55 degrees Celsius.

Its hard for me to see the need for immediate action if that large a change in CO2 results in that small a change in temperature.

Clearly either the models are predicting something decidedly more complex than inertia and dimming (in which case I'd like a reference to what it is) or the models are wrong, possibly because they fail to account for Lindzen's argument.

Action is Impossible

>> the models are wrong >>

They are so unbelievably wrong it really isn't funny anymore.

If the people knew what really is going on, and how impossible it is to fix the climate problem, I fear for civilisation.

The authorities, the media, forums such as this, have been pushing BS for so long that they all believe their own propaganda.

Meanwhile the situation has become critical ( oh it was about 10 years ago) and denial and I believe total fear now has created such inertia that mitigating action will now be impossible.  The leaders and their proxies are completely culpable.

But hey, good call, THEY have passed blame onto everyone, BASTARDS.

Such is the state of play.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks