The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity''}}
{{globalwarmingnav}}{{cquote|I suspect this paper will be hailed on skeptical blogs everywhere but dismissed in the scientific community. The part of the paper that’s right is not new, and the part that’s new is not right.|||{{wpl|Andrew Dessler}}<ref>{{a|https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/988898455149047808|Twitter}}</ref>}}
'''''The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity''''' is an article authored by '''Nicholas Lewis''' and '''[[Judith Curry]]''', published in June 2018 in the ''Journal of Climate'', operated by the American Meteorological Society.<ref>Lewis, N., & Curry, J. (2018). {{a|https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1|The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity}}. ''Journal of Climate'', (2018). DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 ([https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf PDF])</ref> The article asserts that the global temperature will increase by 30-45% less than predicted (by 1.33-1.66°C), based on the actual warming as compared to the IPCC's models (which predict 1.9-3.3°C of warming).

==Coverage==
The article received coverage on all the usual [[global warming denial|"climate skeptic"]] sites: the Cornwall Alliance (which started it all),<ref>{{a|https://cornwallalliance.org/2018/04/climate-alarmist-consensus-about-to-shatter/|Climate Alarmist Consensus—About to Shatter?}}, cornwallalliance.org</ref> ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'' magazine,<ref>{{a|https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/24/global-warming-likely-to-be-30-to-45-per|Global Warming Likely to Be 30 to 45 Percent Lower Than Climate Models Project}}, Reason.com</ref> [[Cato Institute]],<ref>{{a|https://www.cato.org/blog/some-more-insensitivity-about-global-warming|Some More Insensitivity about Global Warming}}, Cato.org</ref> [[Heartland Institute]],<ref>{{a|https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/is-climate-alarmist-consensus-about-to-shatter|IS CLIMATE ALARMIST CONSENSUS ABOUT TO SHATTER?}}, Heartland Institute</ref> [[CNS News]],<ref>{{a|https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e-calvin-beisner/climate-alarmist-consensus-about-be-shattered|Climate Alarmist Consensus Is About to Be Shattered}}, CNSNews.com</ref> [[Investor's Business Daily]],<ref>{{a|https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/|Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See}}, Investors.com</ref> [[Roy Spencer]]'s blog,<ref>{{a|http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/|New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low}}, drroyspencer.com</ref> [[Watts Up With That]],<ref>{{a|https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/24/new-data-imply-lower-climate-sensitivity-thus-slower-global-warming/|New data imply lower climate sensitivity, thus slower global warming}}, wattsupwiththat.com</ref> [[Climate Audit]],<ref>{{a|https://climateaudit.org/2018/04/24/the-impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/|The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity}}, ClimateAudit.org</ref> PatriotPost.us,<ref>{{a|https://patriotpost.us/articles/55638-global-warming-not-as-severe-as-climate-models-project|Global Warming Not as Severe as Climate Models Project}}, PatriotPost.us</ref> TheGlobalDispatch.com,<ref>{{a|http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/american-meteorological-societys-new-study-on-global-warming-reduces-forecasts-by-30-to-45-52968/|American Meteorological Society’s new study on global warming reduces forecasts by 30 to 45%}}, TheGlobalDispatch.com</ref> Cliscep.com,<ref>{{a|https://cliscep.com/2018/04/24/new-paper-by-lewis-and-curry/|New paper by Lewis and Curry}}, cliscep.com</ref> ClimateTheTruth.com,<ref>{{a|https://climatethetruth.com/2018/04/25/models-wrong-on-climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/|Models Wrong on Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response}}, ClimateTheTruth.com</ref> FabiusMaximus.com,<ref>{{a|https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/04/29/latest-news-about-a-climate-disaster/|A look at the workings of Propaganda Inc.}}</ref> [[Longroom]],<ref>{{a|https://www.longroom.com/discussion/1003249/climate-alarmist-consensus-is-about-to-be-shattered|Climate Alarmist Consensus Is About to Be Shattered}}</ref> and both of the author's blogs.<ref>{{a|https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/24/impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/|Impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity}}, JudithCurry.com</ref><ref>{{a|https://www.nicholaslewis.org/the-impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/|The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity}}, NicholasLewis.org</ref>

==Reality==
In short: the Lewis and Curry models don't account for different warming between different locations.

In fact, the estimation method used by the authors has already been discounted by other [[scientists]].<ref>{{a|http://redgreenandblue.org/2018/05/05/climate-deniers-indulge-wishful-thinking-climate-consensus-not-shattering/|Climate deniers indulge in wishful thinking (climate consensus is NOT shattering)}}</ref> Lewis and Curry's 2018 article is itself an updated version of their 2015 article, '''"The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates"''',<ref>Lewis, N., & Curry, J. A. (2015). {{a|https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y|The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates}}. Climate dynamics, 45(3-4), 1009.</ref> (commonly called "LC15") which was panned in the blogosphere by Richard Miller<ref>{{a|http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/climate-response-estimates-from-lewis-curry/|Climate response estimates from Lewis & Curry}}, RealClimate.org</ref> and Roz Pidcock.<ref>{{a|https://www.carbonbrief.org/your-questions-on-climate-sensitivity-answered|Your questions on climate sensitivity answered}}, CarbonBrief.org</ref><ref>{{a|https://skepticalscience.com/questions-on-climate-sensitivity-answered.html|Your questions on climate sensitivity answered}}, SkepticalScience.com</ref>

In both their 2015 and 2018 papers, Lewis and Curry used an "energy budget" or "energy balance" model to estimate climate sensitivity (the warming that one would expect given a certain change in, for example, carbon dioxide concentration). This method has been critiqued by numerous papers, such as Marvel ''et al.'' 2018,<ref>Marvel, K., Pincus, R., Schmidt, G. A., & Miller, R. L. (2018). {{a|https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076468|Internal variability and disequilibrium confound estimates of climate sensitivity from observations}}. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(3), 1595-1601.</ref> Knutti ''et al.'' 2017,<ref>Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017). {{a|https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017|Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity}}. Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 727.</ref> Richardson ''et al.'' 2015,<ref>Richardson, M., Hausfather, Z., Nuccitelli, D. A., Rice, K., & Abraham, J. P. (2015). {{a|http://engine.scichina.com/publisher/scp/journal/SB/60/15/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z|Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results}}. Science bulletin, 60(15), 1370-1377.</ref> Armour 2016,<ref>Armour, K. C. (2016). {{a|https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3079|Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise}}. Nature Climate Change, 6(10), 896.</ref> Richardson ''et al.'' 2016,<ref>Richardson, M., Cowtan, K., Hawkins, E., & Stolpe, M. B. (2016). {{a|https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3066|Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth}}. Nature Climate Change, 6(10), 931.</ref> Cawley ''et al.'' 2015,<ref>Cawley, G. C., Cowtan, K., Way, R. G., Jacobs, P., & Jokimäki, A. (2015). {{a|https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014004876|On a minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity}}. Ecological modelling, 297, 20-25.</ref> and Shindell 2014.<ref>Shindell, D. T. (2014). {{a|https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2136|Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity}}. Nature Climate Change, 4(4), 274.</ref>

In particular, Dessler ''et al.'' 2018 responds to Lewis and Curry's 2015 paper (and others) directly.<ref>Dessler, A. E., Mauritsen, T., & Stevens, B. (2018). {{a|https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/acp-18-5147-2018.html|The influence of internal variability on Earth's energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity}}. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(7), 5147-5155.</ref> Dessler ''et al.'' 2018 already critiqued the methodological upgrade made between the 2015 and 2018 Curry and Lewis papers. In the 2018 paper, Curry and Lewis assert that something Dessler describes as "pattern effects" (ie, the different warming in different areas) doesn't impact their results. However, as Dessler notes, this is not substantiated by the literature, which seems to suggest that pattern effects have a significant effect on energy budget models. As a result, Curry and Lewis felt that Dessler ''et al.'' 2018's critque merited a response,<ref>{{a|https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/30/why-dessler-et-al-s-critique-of-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity-estimation-is-mistaken/|Why Dessler et al.’s critique of energy-budget climate sensitivity estimation is mistaken}}, JudithCurry.com</ref><ref>{{a|https://www.nicholaslewis.org/why-dessler-et-al-s-critique-of-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity-estimation-is-mistaken/|Why Dessler et al.’s critique of energy-budget climate sensitivity estimation is mistaken}}, NicholasLewis.org</ref> which Dessler has also responded to.<ref>{{a|https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/991148670367264768|Tweet}}</ref>

==External links==
*[https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ How well have climate models projected global warming?], Yale Climate Connections
*[http://redgreenandblue.org/2018/05/05/climate-deniers-indulge-wishful-thinking-climate-consensus-not-shattering/ Climate deniers indulge in wishful thinking (climate consensus is NOT shattering)], RedGreenAndBlue
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17mKIKGEF5E Did scientists REALLY just admit to exaggerating global warming?], a video by [[potholer54]] on a 2018 study given similar headlines

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity}}
[[Category:Documents]]
[[Category:Refutations]]

Categories: Documents, Refutations