Posted by Jeff Id on May 21, 2013
So all you skeptics want answers to how much warming we should expect from adding CO2 to the atmosphere? An interesting new study has been released which matches quite closely to Nic Lewis’s work. The difference is that 14 of the authors are lead-coordinating lead authors of the pending AR5 IPCC report. It is being hosted at Bishop Hill blog and WUWT.
Since Skeptical Science pooped all over Nic’s result just last month, and that result has now been replicated by 14 lead authors for the IPCC AR5, I wonder if they will take back their critiques…. Seriously though, these studies represent an important result because it seems like we are finally coming to realize the magnitude we should expect from CO2 based warming. It also seems like the leaked AR5 draft is going to need an update for its projected warming — downward. This is the very issue that has given most of us science-minded critics the label skeptic. You know the label that causes people to put us on lists and declare that skeptics are dangerous, should be charged with crimes and such. So now that a large group of IPCC authors agree with us that higher projections from models aren’t matching observed sensitivity, are they skeptics or are skeptics now climate scientists?
The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.
In a less politicized field, there might need to be some additional time for the IPCC to absorb this information through all of its chapters. Because of our long history with the advocate crowd controlling this field, I’m sure it still means doom for us all, but at least we won’t be as hot when the world ends. ;D