Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesia's Environment Minister, closed the United Nation's Climate Change Conference in Bali yesterday with comment that,
"We have a Roadmap!
I am delighted to say that we have finally achieved the breakthrough the world has been waiting for: the Bali Roadmap!
Distinguished delegates,
The decisions we have taken in Bali together create the world’s road map to a secure climate future. The governments assembled here have responded decisively in the face of new scientific evidence and significant advances in our thinking to collectively envision, and chart, a new climate-secure course for humanity.
The Bali Roadmap consists of a number of forward-looking decisions adopted today. These decisions represent various tracks that are essential to reaching a secure climate future.
At this meeting we have launched a new negotiation process, designed to tackle climate change, with the aim of completing this by 2009.
We have also addressed the AWG negotiations, setting a 2009 deadline, firmly launched the Adaptation Fund, and defined the scope and content of the Art. 9 review of the Kyoto Protocol - all of these on the Kyoto track. Similarly we have charted a course forward on reducing emissions from deforestation and on technology transfer, including an exciting new strategic programme."
For information on these initiatives and the rest of the speech by Mr Witoelar, please click here: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php
Pretty touchy proteus. You mean he isn't?
Luke, so you think calling a scientist a 'big-time denialist' isn't a smear? How interesting. And, yes, I'm looking forward to its reception as well, that was why I initially made a reference to AR5.
Ender, are you serious?
Did I smear anyone proteus - bit of a glass jaw reaction. Chylek is a smart guy as well as being anti-AGW. Let's see how the paper is received and any comments. Obviously highly technical. And gee "I'm sceptical" which surely you must admit would be a good thing. You see this blog has a history of not just claiming "it's over" with a single paper. Need to get a copy and digest it.
proteus - From the conclusion that you posted:
"Considering a hypothetical case that all the current radiative forcing is due to increasing carbon dioxide (at the rate of 1.9 ppmv/a) the estimated empirical climate sensitivity is between 0.67 and 10 K/Wm2""
and
"When both the carbon dioxide and aerosol forcing (direct and indirect) are included the deduced climate sensitivity is reduced to a value between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm2 depending on the ocean heat uptake. Thus neglecting the radiative forcing due to decreasing aerosol optical depth leads to an overestimate of the empirical climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 2"
This is exactly what I said. Please correct me if I am wrong here. They have taken a figure that is assumed to include only CO2 forcings and deducted a new figure for forcings relating to reduced aerosols reducing the CO2 part.
You actually have no clear idea of what the paper is saying do you? Neglecting the climate sensitivity part which is a dodgy measurement anyway consider this.
This paper is showing that the aerosols that the authors admit reduced the amount of warming due to reflecting short wave radiation, are reducing because we have cleaned up coal fired power stations to combat acid rain. The amount of CO2 forcing in the real world, outside of equilibrium models, is increasing with increasing CO2. You join the dots here.
"I assume that the authors took the generally accepted overall total forcing, noted the increased aerosol forcing and then deduced that the CO2 equivalent forcing is smaller leading to a lower climate sensitivity."
Ender, yours is really a ham-fisted, though valiant, effort at confusing what the authors of this paper say clearly. Just read the paper, and, in particular, the introduction.
"What if in fact the CO2 forcing is unchanged and now we have an extra forcing of reducing aerosols leading to more rapid warming????"
This is obviously the reason you call yourself Ender.
proteus - "In other words, the radiative forcing due to CO2 and its equivalents may be over-estimated by a factor of 2."
Also we may have misjudged the overall warming forcing. I assume that the authors took the generally accepted overall total forcing, noted the increased aerosol forcing and then deduced that the CO2 equivalent forcing is smaller leading to a lower climate sensitivity.
What if in fact the CO2 forcing is unchanged and now we have an extra forcing of reducing aerosols leading to more rapid warming????
proteus - "In other words, the radiative forcing due to CO2 and its equivalents may be over-estimated by a factor of 2."
So at the moment we think that the total top of the atmosphere forcing is lets say 10 units. At the moment we think that the major forcing in this is greenhouse gas.
This paper is saying, assuming that it is accepted, that instead of the CO2 contribution instead of being 9 say units, it is only 5 units with the other 4 units being contributed by declining aerosols.
Climate sensitivity, by definition, is the amount of warming that would result from CO2 equivilents alone. Therefore climate sensitivity is said to be halved.
However the total amount of forcing remains the same at 10 units it is just that the CO2 portion, again assuming this paper is correct, is said to be half the forcing instead of the majority of forcing.
The term climate sensitivity, as far as I understand it, does not include reducing aerosol forcings.
Ender, I think you're avoiding their substantive conclusion:
"Thus neglecting the radiative forcing due to decreasing aerosol optical depth leads to an overestimate of the empirical climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 2."
In other words, the radiative forcing due to CO2 and its equivalents may be over-estimated by a factor of 2.
Luke, you earlier suggested the paper was not 'denialist' because one of the authors is from GISS, but then later smear the paper, which you haven't read, by claiming that the lead author, Petr Chylek, from Space and Remote Sensing, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, is a 'big time denialist', but, apparently not 'big time' enough to pick up on your first perusal. Jekyl and Hyde performance, methinks.
And what of those other scientists you smear, are they also in league with the devil?
Ulrike Lohmann
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Manvendra Dubey
Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
Michael Mishchenko
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
Ralph Kahn
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
Atsumu Ohmura
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
proteus - "So, dangerous or catastrophic climate change may actually be receding into the distance. We are possibly looking at about 1-1.5 degrees C increase for a doubling of CO2, of which we've already experienced about half, and 2.5 degrees C at worst."
No they are talking about the increase from CO2 as defined by the term climate sensitivity. This does not mean, as far as I understand it, that the overall temperature increase will be this amount simply that the contribution from CO2, they think, will be smaller.
Of course Chylek is a big time denialist. Let's wait for the critical reviews. Funny I thought the blogs view was that you can't trust the literature.