Settled Science, Well Not So Fast

As we are all aware, team Obama is pushing hard to take over America’s healthcare. We also need to be vigilant towards his efforts to dominate many other aspects of American life especially, with his Cap and Trade scheme.

In the case of the former, team Obama says that CO₂ emissions will dramatically heat the earth.  His basis for this is science, especially the models developed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their most recent prediction (2007) is that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas would be likely raise the earth’s temperature somewhere in the range of 2.0°C to 4.5°C.

Well hold on!  MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi have published a new study based on actual radiation measurements from satellites. They found earth's sensitivity to carbon impacts its temperatures only about 0.5°C.  This is significantly less than the IPCC’s estimate.  

What does this mean besides showing us that team Obama is trying to take over American Industry based on suspect science?  It means that the science of Global Warming is not settled. Keep this in mind when team Obama tries to ram the catastrophic Cap and Trade Bill down America’s throats.

Source

Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.

Comments

[Dick de Seve]

This is all fine and interesting, but see the below link that shows that these two scientists used very carefully selected data to reach their conclusion. The IPCC's estimates are based on a much broader range of analysis, taking into account many more variables than the quoted analysis. This is NOT the kind of sound science that we should be basing very important decisions on. Sorry, NH Insider, but your bias is showing, again. No matter how you slice it, we are responsible for the warming of the atmosphere. If we don't act very quickly, we are going to be living in a very changed climate in a very short period of time, and then we can look back to "scientists"

[Platypus Dude]

Dick,

This work does clearly shows the possibility of the IPCC's models being in error. Are you saying that the MIT scientists as well as people like Roy Spencer are wrong? Where is your rebuttal? Can you please point me to anyone who has found errors in the work I quoted?

You cannot credibly come on this site and disparage well-known scientists without showing a formal rebuttal of their work.

Platy

[Megan]

Well now you hold on Platypus, your writing only cites ONE scientific study. How about YOU back up your article with other published articles on carbon impacts on climate and other estimates. You simply cannot base your "no cap and trade" conclusion on ONE scientific article. I believe this is what Dick was getting at.

[Platypus Dude]

Megan,

I understand, but this seminal research contradicts the main models that are purported to support the claim of the impact of CO2 on global warming. If indeed, the IPCC models are in error, then the specific correlation between CO2 and a rising temperature on earth is no longer valid to the level it is today.

If the MIT study is correct, then efforts to curb CO2 would very likely be seen as not important. This is because less climate sensitivity lessens the impact that rising carbon dioxide levels will have on the earth’s climate.

The MIT folks are not alone, look at all the other work that casts doubt on the sensitivity of the earth's climate.

Regardless, this shows the topic of global warming is not settled.

Chylek, P., and U. Lohmann (2008), Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04804, doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.

Chylek, P., U. Lohmann, M. Dubey, M. Mishchenko, R. Kahn, and A. Ohmura (2007), Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S04, doi:10.1029/2007JD008740.

Douglass, D. H., and R. S. Knox (2005), Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L05710, doi:10.1029/2004GL022119.

Idso, S. B., (1998) CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Climate Research, 10, 69-82.

Lindzen, R. S., and Y-S. (2009) On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophysical Research Letters, in press.

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2007), Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437.

Schwartz, S. E., (2007) Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746

Schwartz, S. E., (2008) Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system”. Schwartz S. E. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D15105 (2008), doi:10.1029/2008JD009872.

Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2008), Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations data: a simple model demonstration, Journal of Climate, 21, 5624-5628.

Wyant, M. C., M., Khairoutdinov, and C. S. Bretherton (2006), Climate sensitivity and cloud response of a GCM with a superparameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06714

[Platy]

Oh by the way, what does Al Gore have to say about this?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report

Platy