“Observations of the global energy budget and their implications” (9)
“The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued (1–5) that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”
“Using up-to-date data on radiative forcing, global mean surface temperature and total heat uptake in the Earth system, we find that the global energy budget (6) implies a range of values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is in agreement with earlier estimates, within the limits of uncertainty.”
“The energy budget of the most recent decade does, however, indicate a lower range of values for the more policy-relevant (7) transient climate response (the temperature increase at the point of doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration following a linear ramp of increasing greenhouse gas forcing) than the range obtained by either analysing the energy budget of earlier decades or current climate model simulations. (8)
“Our results match those of other observation-based studies (15) and suggest that the TCRs of some of the models in the CMIP5 ensemble (10) with the strongest climate response to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels may be inconsistent with recent observations —“
They explain, “The best estimate of TCR [transient climate response] based on OBSERVATION of the most recent decade is 1.3 °C (0.9–2.0 °C;) This is lower than estimates derived from data of the 1990s 1.6 °C (0.9–3.1 °C); or for the 1970–2009 period as a whole 1.4 °C (0.7–2.5 °C)”
But here is the key: “within the limits of uncertainty.” Note that the limits of uncertainty are huge, plus or minus 50% of their best estimate of the MEASURED average temperature. They are betting our money on a coin toss using a formula that is not good at predicting coin tosses.
They are acknowledging that climate models predicted temperatures that were too high. A doubling of CO2 does not produce as much temperature increase as they expected, even though they gave themselves a huge margin of error. So they want to try again. They are addicted.
By analogy, the government bet over $100 billion of our money that the Dow Jones stock market average would finish at 14,000. It didn’t. But within the limits of uncertainty the government stock brokers gave themselves, the Dow could have been at 7,000 or at 25,000 and the government would still consider that the bet with our money was reasonable. We lost our $100 billion and now they will lower their best estimate and bet some more of our money. Think gambling addiction.
- Aldrin, M. et al. Environmetrics 23, 253–271 (2012).
- Lewis, N. J. Clim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1 (2013).
- Ring, M. J., Lindner, D., Cross, E. F. & Schlesinger, M. E. Atmos. Clim. Sci. 2, 401–415 (2012).
- Stott, P. A., Good, P., Jones, G., Gillett, N. P. & Hawkins, E. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014024 (2013).
- Schwartz, S. E. Surv. Geophys. 33, 745–777 (2012).
- Gregory, J. M. & Forster, P. M. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D23105 (2008).
- Allen, M. R. & Frame, D. J. Science 318, 582–583 (2007).
- Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2011).
- 10. Forster, P. M. et al. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 1–12 (2013)
- Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Matthews, D. & Allen, M. R. J. Clim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1 (2013).