New warming study devastates alarmist claims

By |2016-06-09T21:37:13+00:00June 9th, 2016|Climate|23 Comments

Two climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming are closely watching a study they say could be a “death knell” to climate alarmism.

A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted.

“Currently, details are few, but apparently the results of a major scientific study on the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on clouds are going to have large implications for climate change projections—substantially lowering future temperature rise expectations,” Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger wrote in a recent blog post.

Michaels and Knappenberger, both self-described “lukewarmers,” cited a blog post by Reading scientist Dr. Nicolas Bellouin on the preliminary results of his extensive research into this rather vague area of climate science.

Bellouin wrote “there are reasons to expect that aerosol-cloud interactions are weaker than simulated by climate models – and perhaps even weaker than the preliminary… estimate.”

If Bellouin’s preliminary results hold (or are revised downward), that would mean there’s less of a cooling effect from human-created aerosols interacting with clouds, which morph clouds so they bounce incoming solar energy back into space.

“It may be that aerosol-cloud interactions are lost in the noise of natural variability in cloud properties, but for such a large perturbation, the impacts are surprisingly hard to isolate,” Bellouin wrote.

For decades, scientists assumed aerosols — mostly emitted from coal plants, shipping, car travel and other industrial sources — had a sizable cooling effect on the planet, but that might not be the case. More importantly, however, is the fact that if aerosols don’t have much of a cooling effect, the planet is not as sensitive to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. That means less warming.

“Less enhanced cloud cooling means that greenhouse gases have produced less warming than the climate models have determined,” Michaels and Knappenberger wrote.

“Another way to put it is that this new finding implies that the earth’s climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s surface will warm from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much below that of the average climate model (3.2°C) and near the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5°C to 4.5°C assessed range,” they added.

Michaels and Knappenberger are particularly interested in Bellouin’s work since it seems to support a study from last year by Bjorn Stevens, a scientist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. It found aerosols had much less of a cooling effect on the planet than assumed by climate models.

Stevens’s study suggested “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.”

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis incorporated Stevens’s findings with his own on how much warming people could expect from doubling atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Lewis found the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity is from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

In layman’s terms, doubling atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from around 400 parts per million today to 800 ppm in the future would cause 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming, based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate model data.

Incorporate the Max Planck study results, and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half of what IPCC originally predicted.

Of course, Michaels and Knappenberger’s theory is not accepted by everybody. Stevens himself challenged their suggestion that climate sensitivity was lower because aerosols had less of a cooling effect on the planet.

“As they stand, the results of this new study seem to confirm the results of an analysis published last year by Bjorn Stevens of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology which also showed a much smaller anthropogenic enhancement of the cooling property of clouds,” Michaels and Knappenberger wrote.

Stevens is entitled to his own opinion, not his own results. And now it seems his research is being supported by Bellouin’s work. With less aerosol cooling, climate models could be tweaked to predict less future warming.

“In the end, aerosol-cloud scientists reckon that it will come down to counting how often clouds happen to show strong sensitivity to aerosol perturbations,” Bellouin wrote. “Those discussions leave me with the feeling that such situations occur infrequently, and radiative forcing of aerosol-cloud interactions may need to be revised down to weaker values.”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

23 Comments

  1. Li D June 10, 2016 at 5:53 AM

    Ooooohhh so devastated.
    You are writing about a blog about a blog.
    About some potential paper.
    In Australia this is called scraping the
    bottom of the barrel.
    Why not write about all the hard science
    that says burning coal and gas and oil
    is great for the bush, the waters, the frogs
    and elephants and pandas and lichen and
    of course V8 driving americans.
    There is lots of science saying that
    isnt there? Cuz science is what forms
    your beliefs of course. You are a science
    orientated sort of fella. Willing to be
    absolutely ruthless with ones own preconceptions in case it effects a bias
    to interpretating data.

  2. Lincoln June 10, 2016 at 9:13 PM

    MAY 10, 2016 Study Finds “No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present”

    Precipitation measurements made at nearly 1000 stations located in 114 countries were studied. Each station had at least 100 years of observations resulting in a dataset comprising over 1½ million monthly precipitation amounts.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169415008744

  3. Lincoln June 10, 2016 at 9:17 PM

    September 21, 2014 More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Challenge UN IPCC :Panel

    Note: This report was originally published in 2010. It is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on climate change Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

    • Li D June 11, 2016 at 3:51 AM

      Bwahahahahahahahaha.
      Climategate. Too funny.
      Jeez that Dr bloke who reckons its
      fraud aint real cluey is he!
      Mr/Mrs Lincoln, you might wish to
      find better authority to appeal to.
      Ive noticed a certain subset of denier scum that really truely rouly believe
      that climategate has meaning.
      Its like a flag, an indicator, of extreme stupidity.

      • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM

        Indicator, aye.

        Best,

        D

    • Li D June 11, 2016 at 3:55 AM

      Of course Mr/Mrs Lincoln, you may
      just be nicely posting link so everyone can have a good laugh, and not subscribe to such views yourself,
      in which case, thankyou.

    • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 10:40 AM

      What this silly disinformer left out:

      This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report

      Swift Boat Propagandist! Drink!

      Best,

      D

      • Lincoln June 11, 2016 at 11:37 AM

        “Where all men think alike, no one thinks very much.” Walter Lippmann

        http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Kool-Aid-Man-Pic-kool-aid-372375_1398_1260.jpg

        • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM

          Me loves me some Swift Boat Propagandist apologia!

          Best,

          D

          • Lincoln June 11, 2016 at 3:11 PM

            Child, Note: This report was originally published in 2010. It is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on climate change Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

            More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

            Sesame Street: Sunny Days (Season 46 Opening)

            Sunny Days, sweeping the clouds away, on my way to where the air is sweet. Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?

            https://youtu.be/b2rBhpVDzO8

            • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 7:19 PM

              Thanks, lad. How many are still on the list that asked to be removed? How many publish in the climate sciences?

              You’re cute. The science is not on your side so you trot out some irrelevant names.

              Best,

              D

    • Ian5 June 12, 2016 at 10:12 PM

      A good disinformation summary designed to mislead. No one with any credentials takes it seriously.

  4. Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 10:34 AM

    The trumpeted “study” is not a study. It is a blog post.

    This is the best denialists and disinformers can do, folks.

    Best,

    D

  5. Lincoln June 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM

    06/08/2016 This New Study Devastates Claims From Global Warming Alarmists

    Two climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming are closely watching a study they say could be a “death knell” to climate alarmism. A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/this-new-study-devastates-claims-of-global-warming-alarmism/#ixzz4BHV2Vuk4

Comments are closed.