Tuesday, March 22, 2016

L'Hansen, Sato, Hearty Ruedy, Kelley, Massn-Delmotte, Russell, Tselioudis, Cao, Rignot, Velicogna, Tormey, Donovan, Kandiano, v. Schuckmann, Kharecha, Legrande, Bauer, & Lo

est arrive



Published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, with supplement and several newspaper summaries, including those by Chris Mooney and Justin Gillis.

As Mooney points out, the title has been changed from  Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous to Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous 

Eli is reassured. 

6 comments:

Kevin O'Neill said...

Yes, it is most reassuring that the authors have conceded that 2C of warming is only likely to be dangerous instead of highly dangerous.

Walked that back quite a bit they did.

8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...

Yes, all is well then, ALL IS WELL, because some pathetic reputable scientists with hunks of pure ivory stuck up their asses told me so.

Why do I waste my time babysitting PhDs and Doctors?

Jeffrey Davis said...

The most important effect of AGW isn't sea level rise or any other merely physical reaction. The most important effect is political instability. As in the current influx of refugees from drought-stricken Syria.

Everett F Sargent said...

Dog Gamn those reticent climate scientists!

"The eventual death of my children and grandchildren is all their fault."

JE Hansen, NYT editorial, 01 April 2016

Everett F Sargent said...

HuffPo has the transcript of the above video here ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/climate-change-irreparable-harm_b_9521664.html

"The explanation for why the surface response is so slow in the model is that the model ocean mixes heat too rapidly into the deeper ocean. This same excessive mixing causes the models to be less sensitive to the freshwater lens on the ocean surface, which also tends to mix too fast.

There is other data, besides Earth’s energy imbalance, supporting this interpretation, including the sensitivity of paleoclimate to freshwater forcing. However, there is one recent paper that is especially important, by Winton et al. (2014), who show that a model with 0.1° resolution, fine enough to resolve small scale ocean motions and avoid parameterized mixing, yields a surface temperature response about a quarter larger after 50-100 years, consistent with our interpretation.

It would be valuable if all models would report their surface climate response function as well as their equilibrium climate sensitivity, and examine the model sensitivity to a standard rapidly increasing rate of meltwater injection."

No, 0.1 degree isn't eliminating "parameterized mixing" or resolving "small scale ocean motions", it only eliminates specific larger scale assumptions (in this case large scale (~10km horizontal) eddies).

As to the last sentence, would that be non-reticent (exponential hosing) or reticent (partial or truncated Taylor/power series expansion) hosing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function#Formal_definition

Russell Seitz said...

Russell is not reassured by how Joe Romm has un-balanced Chris's piece with a gonzo ClimateProgress graph.

Who knew the projected global warming curve from 2013 to 2100 was a very nearly vertical straight line ?

Maybe Joe fished it out of his hat by accident while fishing for the Easter bunny , or his Trump shillelagh :

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/24/3762641/donald-trump-bad-climate-denial/