My op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is now online
I was invited to submit an op-ed regarding the recent Lewis/Curry paper on climate sensitivity. For background, see Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/ Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/05/lewis-and-crok-climate-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-models-suggest/ Challenging the two degree target http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/03/challenging-the-2-degree-target/ WSJ editorial The full text of the op-ed is reproduced below, WSJ link – http://online.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060. The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent. According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go. In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations. Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions. The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models. Nicholas Lewis and I have just published a study in Climate Dynamics that shows the best estimate for transient climate response is 1.33 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 1.05-1.80 degrees Celsius. Using an observation-based energy-balance approach, our calculations used the same data for the effects on the Earth’s energy balance of changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change given by the IPCC’s latest report. We also estimated what the long-term warming from a doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations would be, once the deep ocean had warmed up. Our estimates of sensitivity, both over a 70-year time-frame and long term, are far lower than the average values of sensitivity determined from global climate models that are used for warming projections. Also our ranges are narrower, with far lower upper limits than reported by the IPCC’s latest report. Even our upper limits lie below the average values of climate models. Our paper is not an outlier. More than a dozen other observation-based studies have found climate sensitivity values lower than those determined using global climate models, including recent papers published in Environmentrics (2012), Nature Geoscience (2013) and Earth Systems Dynamics (2014). These new climate sensitivity estimates add to the growing evidence that climate models are running “too hot.” Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased. This pause in warming is at odds with the 2007 IPCC report, which expected warming to increase at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the early 21st century. The warming hiatus, combined with assessments that the climate-model sensitivities are too high, raises serious questions as to whether the climate-model projections of 21st century temperatures are fit for making public policy decisions. The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is a central question in the debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. Continuing to rely on climate-model warming projections based on high, model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. This can bias policy decisions. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper, as well as similar other recent studies, is that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario. This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available. First draft I learned a lot about writing an op-ed through this process. Below is my first draft. This morphed into the final version based on input from Nic, another journalist and another person who is experienced in writing op-eds, plus input from the WSJ editors. All of the words in the final version have been approved by me, although the WSJ editors chose the title. The challenge is to simplify the language, but not the argument, and keep it interesting and relevant while at the same not distorting the information. Below is my first draft: Some insensitivity about climate change At the recent UN Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon stated: “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees will soon close forever.” In the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing ‘dangerous human interference’ with the climate has been defined – rather arbitrarily – as limiting warming to more than 2oC above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8oC, leaving only 1.2oC before reaching allegedly ‘dangerous’ levels. Based upon global climate model simulations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5; 2013) projects a further increase in global mean surface temperatures with continued emissions to exceed 1.2oC sometime within the 21st century, with the timing and magnitude of the exceedance depending on future emissions. If and when we reach this dangerous level of human caused warming depends not only on how quickly emissions rise, but also on the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas induced warming. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower. Climate sensitivity is the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the rise in temperature once the climate system has fully warmed up, a process taking centuries due to the enormous heat capacity of the ocean. Transient climate response is a shorter-term measure of sensitivity, over a 70 year timeframe during which carbon dioxide concentrations double. The IPCC AR5 concluded that equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and the transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C. Climate model simulations produce values in the upper region of these ranges, with most climate models having equilibrium climate sensitivity values exceeding 3.5oC and transient climate response values exceeding 1.8oC. At the lower end of the sensitivity ranges reported by the IPCC AR5 are values of the climate sensitivity determined using an energy budget model approach that matches global surface temperatures with greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings (such as solar variations and aerosol forcings) over the last century or so. I coauthored a paper recently published in Climate Dynamics that used this approach to determine climate sensitivity. Our calculations used the same forcing data given by the IPCC AR5, and we included a detailed accounting of the impact of uncertainties in the forcing data on our climate sensitivity estimates. Our results show the best (median) estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.64oC, with a likely (17–83% probability) range of 1.25–2.45oC. The median estimate for Transient Climate Response is 1.33oC with a likely range of 10.5-1.80oC. Most significantly, our new results support narrower likely ranges for climate sensitivity with far lower upper limits than reported by the IPCC AR5. Our upper limits lie below – for equilibrium climate sensitivity, substantially below – the average values of climate models used for warming projections. The true climate sensitivity may even be lower, since the energy budget model assumes that all climate change is forced, and does not account for the effects of decadal and century scale internal variability associated with long-term ocean oscillations. These new climate sensitivity estimates adds to the growing evidence that climate models are running ‘too hot.’ At the heart of the recent scientific debate on climate change is the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming – the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not increased. This observed warming hiatus contrasts with the expectation from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that warming would proceed at a rate of 0.2oC/per decade in the early decades of the 21st century. The warming hiatus combined with assessments that the climate model sensitivities are too high raises serious questions as to whether the climate model projections of 21st century have much utility for decision making. The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. Continuing to use the higher global climate model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper is that human caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2oC ‘danger’ level for all but the most extreme emission scenario considered by the IPCC AR5. This delay in the warming – relative to climate model projections – relaxes the phase out period for greenhouse gas emissions, allowing more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably and the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available. JC reflections I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to write this op-ed, and I am hugely thankful to Nic Lewis and others (unnamed) who helped me improve this. The timing for all this couldn’t be worse for me, being in China, 12 hour time difference, behind the great Chinese internet firewall (thanks to all who tried to help me break through) without access to twitter, and leaving for travel this afternoon. Let’s see how this is received. I have a trusted colleague tweeting for me on this, should be interesting. In any event, I see the climate policy dialogue starting to open up, with discussion of the 2 degree threshold, lower sensitivity, and the hiatus.
— gReader Pro