Climate Sensitivity (the short of it)

A new study suggests short term warming will be less, but long-term warming to remain about the same.

Joanne Nova gets all excited about the prospect of less short term warming that she forgets that (in her opinion) models are 100% wrong. She also chooses to ignore the authors comments about long term temperature forecasts remaining unchanged.

Cherry picking the bits of a report she like is what Joanne Nova does best.

What does the author of the paper, Dr Otto, think?

From the ABC

But Dr Otto cautions that the longer-term warming trend will not change and it will eventually result in the same higher temperatures as earlier forecast.

It certainly is no reason to relax or become complacent in terms of climate policy, because the rate of warming that we will see eventually in the coming centuries has not changed from this data,” he said.

Co-author Myles Allen also writes about another climate denialist …

Now 1.3C is 30% less than 1.8C, but this is hardly a game changer: at face value, our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead. Then again, they might not: 1.8C is within our range of uncertainty; and natural variability will affect what happens in the 2050s anyway.

From the BBC

Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

Other experts aren’t as enthusiastic as blogger Jo Nova.

Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales had a more sober opinion. When asked …

“Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?”

“None. No comfort whatsoever,” he said.

More amusing is that in Nova’s rush to support this paper, she accepts the warming of the oceans that only a day earlier she was trying to cast doubt upon. Contradiction doesn’t bother her, so long as she’s raising doubt.

Advertisements

Tags:

8 Responses to “Climate Sensitivity (the short of it)”

  1. james72013 Says:

    Well models are pretty close to 100% wrong. They leave out key factors such as the sun.

    • Jo Says:

      So so wrong. All models have a solar input otherwise the energy of the planet would rapidly decline.

      Perhaps what you mean is the changes in solar? But even then you’d be wrong since there are many examples of scientists examining the link between changes in the sun and our climate.

      Eg. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm

      Might I suggest you stop “learning” from Nova’s blogger website. 😉

      • james72013 Says:

        Well I meant that in the models the sun is minor. Where is your proper evidence? I know about that graph “hockey stick” was edited by you lot because you are running a scare champagne. WARNING: I can give your blog a mighty wallop if I want.

  2. Another Week of Anthropocene Antics, May 26, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered Says:

    […] 2013/05/23: ItsNotNova: Climate Sensitivity (the short of it) […]

  3. Nice One Says:

    Evidence would be more convincing than threats.

  4. Nice One Says:

    That comment was meant for james72013. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: