Climate models overstimate CO2's impact by large factor?

[DeltaPilot]

http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnk0b1ks-1227555674611

 

 Curious what those who are more "learned" than me on the entire discussion think of this "discovery" concerning ALL climate models. Seems very fishy to me.  I have not read anything here or elsewhere addressing these findings.

 

 Seems its more ammo for deniers to grasp. Im not one, but I am interested in the opinions of others here who may have already delved into this gentlemans claim. Quote from article below....looking for more info presently.

 

 

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science. He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly. He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

 

t turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says. “Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.  Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said. His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting."

[donsutherland1]

http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnk0b1ks-1227555674611

 

 Curious what those who are more "learned" than me on the entire discussion think of this "discovery" concerning ALL climate models. Seems very fishy to me.  I have not read anything here or elsewhere addressing these findings.

 

 Seems its more ammo for deniers to grasp. Im not one, but I am interested in the opinions of others here who may have already delved into this gentlemans claim. Quote from article below....looking for more info presently.

 

 

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science. He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly. He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

 

t turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says. “Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.  Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said. His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting."

As far as I know, the above assessment has not even been submitted for peer review. (The article states that his blog posts will be published as two scientific papers, until that happens nothing is submitted to peer review).

 

By the way, how does "unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model" have anything to do with the scientific basis of climate change? If the radiative forcing of CO2 were markedly less than what is currently accepted, one would expect a serious paper that would be widely examined. The news story does not seem to indicate something along those lines.

[DeltaPilot]

I have found NO peer reviewed or published paper from him either. Did find this though...seems he might be mistaken about several things......

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

[donsutherland1]

Looking at one of the essays on the blog site, one finds the following:

 

The conventional basic climate model treats climate influences that cause the same radiation imbalance as interchangeable. Consequently, increased CO2, which blocks some heat from escaping to space from the upper atmosphere, is treated the same as increased sunlight, which warms the surface. The basic model is structurally unable to distinguish them, applying the solar response (how the Earth responds to absorbed sunlight) to both. Physically, this is rather implausible.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imbalances-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/

 

This commentary displays an elementary misunderstanding of radiative forcing. Such forcing deals with the energy balance, not sunlight. Furthermore, radiative forcing is a standardized measurement of the energy balance impact of a given gas, hence comparisons for the estimated energy balance impact for changes in various gases are feasible. Physics has fairly accurately measured the radiative forcing of individual gases. Where some uncertainty exists is the precise climate sensitivity to, let's say, a doubling of carbon dioxide, but a range exists and has been narrowed over time.

 

In short, if this piece of commentary containing a flawed understanding of radiative forcing and misunderstanding of concept of standardization are representative, the resulting papers will have little or no scientific merit. My guess is that if the idea had merit, it would initially have been published for peer review, not blogged.

[AvantHiatus]

Very dangerous derailment before a key climate conference overseas. Should of never seen the light of day and NTnews are fools or payed shills for posting it. (sorry, the stakes are too high).

 

The Australian government is notorious for their poor climate policy (probably the worst in the world among developed nationa), the whole chain of command is corrupted by deniers and big business.

 

It's easy see through their game after awhile and these slash and burn reactions to climate change need to stop.

[ORH_wxman]

 Physics has fairly accurately measured the radiative forcing of individual gases. Where some uncertainty exists is the precise climate sensitivity to, let's say, a doubling of carbon dioxide, but a range exists and has been narrowed over time.

 

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

The radiative forcing for doubling CO2 is well established at roughly 3.7 W/M^2. The climate sensitivity calculations are given as:

 

ECS = F_2xCO2 X ΔT / (ΔF - ΔQ)

 

The F_2xCO2 term is not considered controversial. Neither is ΔT. It is the (ΔF - ΔQ) term that dominates our uncertainty in the ECS.

[stadiumwave]

Very dangerous derailment before a key climate conference overseas. Should of never seen the light of day and NTnews are fools or payed shills for posting it. (sorry, the stakes are too high).

 

The Australian government is notorious for their poor climate policy (probably the worst in the world among developed nationa), the whole chain of command is corrupted by deniers and big business.

 

It's easy see through their game after awhile and these slash and burn reactions to climate change need to stop.

Well...to be fair, there has been a lot of BS come out this year ahead of the Climate Summit.

[A-L-E-K]

denier nonsense