[Vision2020] URL Error? Re: Exploring Implications of Levenson's List of Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 11:35:05 PDT 2010

It seems there might be a problem with the first URL in the just sent post
under the subject heading above, so here is the URL again:

 Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

(c) 2006 by Barton Paul Levenson

On 7/19/10, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Regarding the list of peer reviewed published scientific estimates of
> climate sensitivity from Levenson's research
> ( *http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html*<http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html>
>  ),
> referenced in your comments below,  there are implications worth exploring
> concerning your arguments to question anthropogenic climate warming.
> I thought it might be useful to pedantically point out that Kelvin and
> Celsius indicate the same temperature change per degree.  But Kelvin starts
> at absolute zero, minus 273 Celsius (thus there are no minus Kelvin
> readings), while Celsius starts at the freezing point of H2O, with minus
> readings below, positive above.  100 Celsius is the boiling point of H2O.
> Climate sensitivity estimates in Kelvin indicate the same result as if they
> were given in Celsius:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070628.html
> *Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at yahoo.com
> <vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20NSIDC%3A%202010%20Arctic%20Sea%20Ice%20Decline%20Highest%20for%0A%20Month%20of%20May%20During%20Satellite%20Record.&In-Reply-To=AANLkTikgtysuwIj_sxaTPlYd3Ti619rtns1ztUwTuF1r%40mail.gmail.com>
> *Mon Jun 21 19:06:15 PDT 2010*
> "The link you posted on climate sensitivity shows values that are all over
> the
> board, from 0.26 to 5.5 Kelvins.  There doesn't seem to be a trend that
> shows them converging on a final number, either.  Since 2000, the range
> is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin.  Anything under about 1.2 is probably not a
> problem, since it implies strong negative feedback. Anything under about
> 1.2 is probably not a problem, since it implies strong negative feedback.
> Anything over about 2 could be a definite problem, depending upon the exact
> feedbacks
> involved.  It doesn't appear to me that climate scientists are on top of
> the feedback problem, either.  I'm not even confident that they have
> identified them all, let alone figured out exactly how they affect each
> other."
> -----------------
> These estimates on climate sensitivity from Barton Paul Levenson are not
> "all over the board," as you wrote.  Not one indicates a reduction in
> temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  If they were "all over the
> board" some would show negative feedback(s) that more than overcome the
> radiative forcing of CO2, resulting in predictions of a temperature
> reduction, especially if your arguments referencing "Chaos Theory" applied
> to global climate are compelling.
> Furthermore, you make no reference to Levenson's analysis revealing the
> mean of these studies indicates climate sensitivity to be 2.86 or 3.15
> Kelvin.   This mean result can be argued indicates that based on these
> studies, there is a significant probability that climate sensitivity is high
> enough to justify taking action to reduce CO2 emissions.
> Given your emphasis on "Chaos Theory" to question the scientific consensus
> that human impacts are the primary driver of the the rapid and profound
> global climate change currently being observed which will increase
> significantly, it is a challenge to your argument that all these studies on
> climate sensitivity show a temperature increase.  If the global climate
> system was as "chaotic" as you suggest, there would be a significant number
> of peer reviewed published results predicting doubling atmospheric CO2 would
> decrease global average temperature from strong negative feedbacks,
> perhaps from cloud formation feedbacks, a variable you have pointed out that
> climate scientists have difficulty modeling.  That all these estimates of
> climate sensitivity from Levenson's research show an increase in
> temperature, suggests that on this scientific question the climate system is
> not as "chaotic" as you imply.  Indeed, the scientific question of climate
> sensitivity is perhaps one of the best examples of a question focusing on
> global *climate*, rather than more chaotic local or regional *weather*.
> Perhaps you can offer a list of peer reviewed published estimates of
> climate sensitivity predicting temperature decreases in global average
> temperature from doubling atmospheric CO2?  Even the "dean" of anthropogenic
> climate change skeptics (to quote NASA climate scientist James Hansen from
> his book "Storms of My Grandchildren"
> http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/ ), MIT's Richard Lindzen, finds
> climate sensitivity to be positive, though minimal.  He has argued with his
> "Iris" theory that the climate system has mechanisms to dissipate thermal
> energy to space that lower temperature.  However, Lindzen's "Iris" theory
> has not held up to scientific peer review ( [Vision2020] Anthropogenic
> Warming Skeptic Richard Lindzen Deconstructed Via Peer Review:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-July/064927.html  ,
> [Vision2020] MIT Meteorologist Lindzen's Recent Climate Science Paper
> Poorly Peer Reviewed, With Direct Critical Comments Rejected by GRL?* *
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068047.html ).
> As far as these studies converging on a "final number" (Levenson's analysis
> does suggest "convergence" in the graphs he presents.  Quoting Levenson, "In
> summary statistics, N = 61, the mean is 2.86, and the sample standard
> deviation is 1.50. Notice how the estimates are beginning to converge with
> time"), climate science operates within a probable range of future
> temperature increases in global average temperatures from human CO2
> emissions and other impacts.  If you are demanding a "final number" before
> declaring the science confidently predicts a high probability of a
> significant temperature increase from doubling atmospheric CO2, you are
> making a scientifically flawed argument.
> Also, there are ten estimates of climate sensitivity in Levenson's
> list from 2000-2006.  As you wrote, "the range is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin."  But
> nine of the estimates are from 1.8 to 4.5 Kelvin.  Only one estimate, 0.75
> Kelvin, shows climate sensitivity to be low enough to indicate
> human emissions increasing atmospheric CO2 and temperature are not a major
> problem, as shown below (however, ocean acidification is another important
> issue indicating CO2 emissions should be reduced, regardless of the
> magnitude of global warming).  It is not unreasonable to question one low
> estimate when nine others are much higher:
> http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html
>   Boer et al. 2000 3.5 Washington et al. 2000 2.1 Dai et al. 2001 2.1 Wetherald
> et al. 2001 4.5 Boer and Yu 2003 3.50 Shaviv and Veizer 2003 0.75 Stern
> 2005 4.4 Sumi 2005 2.8 Goosse et al. 2006 1.8 Hegerl et al. 2006 2.5
> --------------------
> I'll briefing consider evidence that climate sensitivity is not a low  0.75
> Kelvin.
> So far, human CO2 emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by approximately
> 110 ppm, from a pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm to a current level of
> about 390 ppm ( http://co2now.org/ ), less than half of a doubling of
> atmospheric CO2.  Yet global average temperatures since 1880, according to
> climate scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ), have already increased 0.8
> Celsius, depending on the error bars interpretation.
> Of course anthropogenic climate change skeptics, even if they accept this
> temperature increase as based on reliable temperature data, which many do
> not, will claim the increase is mostly from natural climate change
> variables. Read Roy Spencer on this question, a well known often quoted
> skeptic whose climate science analysis indicates natural variables are
> warming climate, that overall does not survive scientific peer review:
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
>  .
> However, the consensus after decades of analysis by climate scientists
> around the globe is that natural climate change does not explain the 0.8
> degree Celsius increase since 1880.  Read 2010 reports from the National
> Academy of Sciences on climate change:
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010 and
> 2010 release from the American Statistical Association:
> http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/03/01/climatemar10/ .
> Professor Scott Mandia's analysis on this issue is instructive, especially
> the implications of tropospheric warming coupled with stratospheric cooling,
> as evidence temperature increases are not due to certain natural variables.
> Mandia's analysis indicates Roy Spencer's claims at the website already
> given cannot be correct.  The isotope signature ratio of the CO2 in the
> atmosphere indicates the CO2 increase since pre-industrial level must be due
> to the burning of fossil fuels and land use impacts, and the tropospheric
> warming coupled with stratospheric cooling is not explained by solar, cloud,
> or ocean current climate variables.  Quoting Mandias: "Solar forcing, cloud
> cover, ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc. cannot explain a cooler stratosphere even when
> ozone depletion is accounted for. Increasing greenhouse gases explain this
> coupling very well and climate models predict a warmer troposphere and a
> cooler stratosphere with increased greenhouse gases."  Read on this issue
> here:
> http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html .
> The physics regarding CO2's radiative forcing in Earth's atmosphere can
> largely explain Earth's warming trend, as human emissions have increased
> atmospheric CO2 level, according to the American Institute of Physics.  The
> following website explores the history of the science as far back as the
> 1800s, with intense debate among scientists, among them Sherwood Idso, one
> of the scientists listed in Levenson's estimates of climate sensitivity who
> found a low value for climate sensitivity:
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm .
> If there were also profound natural variables warming Earth's climate at
> this point in time, it's likely even more temperature increase would
> be observed.  In fact, there are natural climate trends that could be
> cooling the Earth's climate at this point.  Read March 2005 article by
> Ruddiman in Scientific American regarding an argument Earth should be
> tending to cool by natural variables:
> http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/news/0305046.pdf
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/ruddiman-william-f/
> An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm, less than half of a
> doubling of CO2 level, is already resulting in a global temperature increase
> (0.8 Kelvin, or Celsius) that indicates climate sensitivity is well above
> 0.75 Kelvin.  It would be a very dangerous gamble for humanity to push
> atmospheric CO2 level to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial level to 560
> ppm, given the probability climate sensitivity is significant.
> The climate feedbacks that are claimed are not well understood enough to
> make credible predictions regarding future climate, have been studied by
> climate scientists for decades; and reliable predictions are quantified
> within a range of probabilities. Read 2009 MIT study on probabilities of
> temperature increases:
> http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/no-policy.html
> http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf .
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100719/0f42d0d1/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list