There's a really good post here summing up the contradictory conclusions of two recent papers - one saying climate sensitivity is likely to be at the higher end of the range (Trenberth), and one saying it should be on the lower side (Schlesinger).
Each criticises the other's approach quite strongly.
But even Schlesinger is pragmatic and thinks the world still needs to be cautious:
Despite Schlesinger’s more optimistic outlook, he stresses sharp emissions reductions must begin, in case his estimates are wrong.
“...for argument’s sake, let’s suppose the [climate sensitivity] is larger than the values we determined....humanity must act sooner and more rapidly...” Schlesinger said.Indeed.
Scientists often say a single study is not gospel, particularly if the results depart drastically from the overwhelming body of existing literature. Contrary to Schlesinger’s result, the majority of state-of-the-art four-dimensional “general circulation models” (GCMs) - the kind used in the Trenberth and Fasullo study - estimate the climate sensitivity is closer to 3 degrees C. The 2007 IPCC report stated 3 degrees C is the “most likely” number.
ReplyDeleteI tried to find info about these 2 but failed to find details.
Concensus is your friend here. Try to obtain funding to refute these computer programs - that's what they are - and walk away with a mortgage in default. They are secret. Like the WMD in Iraq intel. Secret. Why? It's public money. Why?
Anyway it's impossible to prove they are incorrect. Tough game this one.