What will happen when our pets become critically endangered?

[ca1ore]

Forgive me if I misinterpreted this as being insensitive. I can see your point. I guess I think of fish having eyes, and responding to my presents as their lifeline. However you still have an interesting point I believe. On one hand I would say any living thing that relies on your care to survive is considered a pet. However, having said that, I would not consider a houseplant a pet for example. So perhaps I am being insensitive in that respect.

Maybe insensitive .... was more a question. The irony for me is that even though I don’t think of my reef tank as a pet, I spend a significant amount of effort to keep them as healthy as possible. Recently got a standby generator and told my kids I did it for them .... I really did it for the reef tank. Go figure.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

On geological timescales there’s nothing to worry about, the planet will be fine. Calcifying animals will persist, mammals will get replaced just as the dinosaurs did; it’ll just take a few million years or so. No problem for the planet, a problem for us. Maybe that’s the answer to Fermi’s Paradox.

Yeh, lucky we aren't likely to increase CO2 by 12.5 times its present level any time soon, hey?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Richard Ross' MACNA presentation was very good. Although short, his comments concerning Hawaii & Florida reefs - at 40:50 minutes, was sensible & to the point.
This realistic attitude is what is needed. Use the available time & resources to deal with the real & present problems.

 

[shred5]

Interesting you should bring that up. I went diving in the keys this past summer and had a chance to see some of the cultivation ‘lines’ they are using to grow out Florida stag horn (did not see any elk horn) and thought to myself that the reef hobby could grow them out as well. In almost a week of diving we only saw healthy wild colonies once ... on the northern most dive interestingly.

What people do not get is we can not put corals back without endangering all the rest of the corals. We mix corals from different seas and oceans in our aquariums. One ocean can have different diseases and pathogens. One sea may have built up a resistance over thousands of years to a certain pathogen. We put that pathogen into a different sea and it could wipe out other coral..

This is what is believed to have almost wiped out the Diadema antillarum.

Problem in the Caribbean is there is only two acropora and the most other corals are slow growing that are reef building.

The other issue is like Acropora palmata main way of propagating is through fragmentation. So it is slow to move back in once it is gone from a area. This is why transplantation is important.

Another issues Acropora palmata does not grow well in a reef. Acropora cervicornis would be fine but both are very brown so many would probably not keep them anyway.

I will hopefully be talking to Henry Schultz in a few weeks when I am in Cozumel. Some may remember from allot of fish articles he used to write. He has since left the states and now runs a dive operation in Cozumel and was in Fiji for a while too.. I will ask him about what it going on and what he is seeing..

 

[Timfish1]

Well, there's about 140-150 posts on this thread I haven't read so if anything I say is overly redundant I'm sorry (kinda ;Smuggrin ).

Regarding the "debate" on global warming while I am dubious of the gloom and doom predictions often given, it also does not strike me as very smart to continue anything that is not sustainable. When I look at the steps that need to be done to have a truly sustainable global economy what I see are the things that need to be changed to stop global warming.

Regarding the OP, many of us already have endangered corals in or tanks. So far the government hasn't made a big issue but that may change. In the future we may have a hobby like the people who keep parrots that can no longer be imported but where it's not much of an issue to own and transport a captive raised species with in the US. Or it may be like keeping a Gallapagos giant tortise where a permitting process is needed to own one or move it across state lines.

I for one would hate to see coral imports shut down. Tonga, for example, shut down it's coral exports roughly a decade ago. It only took about a year for the Tonga government to realise how important coral export was to the country's economy and that it could be done sustainably and reopen exports. Sadly regulations intended to protect animals can in fact hurt them, especially when the regulations remove any economic incentive to protect them.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Just discovered more cinimatic Gold. From the first 5 minutes to the last 5 minutes.
Cloud feedback, peak oil, food stock piling, only a few years left to act, & the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

@Lowell Lemon, for your nostalgic pleasure
@biophilia, the most fundamental understandings of an entire field of science going back a half century, from the work of tens of thousands of experts

Scrubber Screens Productions Presents
1988s Corn Popping Production

Stopping The Coming Ice Age

 

[ca1ore]

Yeh, lucky we aren't likely to increase CO2 by 12.5 times its present level any time soon, hey?

I stocked up on sunscreen (SPF 1,000,000) so pretty sure I’m good.

 

[ca1ore]

Just discovered more cinimatic Gold. From the first 5 minutes to the last 5 minutes.
Cloud feedback, peak oil, food stock piling, only a few years left to act, & the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

@Lowell Lemon, for your nostalgic pleasure
@biophilia, the most fundamental understandings of an entire field of science going back a half century, from the work of tens of thousands of experts

Scrubber Screens Productions Presents
1988s Corn Popping Production

Stopping The Coming Ice Age

Every ‘position’ has their whack jobs .....

Went to a ‘seminar’ on alien visitations a while back. Guy presenting appeared educated and intelligent, and sincere, yet was advocating things I’d judge absurd. Best to ignore the fringe.

 

[ca1ore]

What people do not get is we can not put corals back without endangering all the rest of the corals. We mix corals from different seas and oceans in our aquariums. One ocean can have different diseases and pathogens. One sea may have built up a resistance over thousands of years to a certain pathogen. We put that pathogen into a different sea and it could wipe out other coral.

Understood, I’m certainly not advocating indescriminate and uninformed replenishment, but the many millions of galloans of reef aquaria could act as a form of redundant reservoir. Not a perfect analogy perhaps, but in 1977 Pink Floyd had a massive concert tour (In the Flesh). They were almost manic about preventing people from making amatuer recordings of the shows, yet did nor professionally record any of them. Perfectly within their rights as owners of the IP, but the great irony is that now the only semi-decent live recording is in the form of a bootleg. Just saying that forms of redundancy are useful in oft unanticipated ways. Ultimately moot because I was unable to argue my way into going home with any staghorn frags LOL.

 

[biophilia]

Just discovered more cinimatic Gold. From the first 5 minutes to the last 5 minutes.
Cloud feedback, peak oil, food stock piling, only a few years left to act, & the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

@Lowell Lemon, for your nostalgic pleasure
@biophilia, the most fundamental understandings of an entire field of science going back a half century, from the work of tens of thousands of experts

Scrubber Screens Productions Presents
1988s Corn Popping Production

Stopping The Coming Ice Age

Just checking, but is your point essentially that because some people were wrong at one point during the infancy of the field of climatology, we should discount the abundant evidence present now? There was a time when some doctors touted the health benefits of tobacco, but it would be pretty unreasonable to try to use that fact as an indication that a modern understanding of the dangers of smoking is fundamentally flawed. Skepticism is a valuable tool, but skepticism that persists in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary and without good reason is just dogma.

Two things that might help me to come to a better understanding of what actual evidence you're basing your position on and whether or not it is a position worth considering:

1. What specific evidence would change your mind?

2. Would you mind linking some recent peer-reviewed literature that finds human emissions are not increasing the global mean temperature?

 

[Art2249]

There are two groups of climate change skeptics. Those who are skeptical of the science and those, like myself, who are skeptical of the solutions that have been put forth so far.

 

[MnFish1]

Just checking, but is your point essentially that because some people were wrong at one point during the infancy of the field of climatology, we should discount the abundant evidence present now? There was a time when some doctors touted the health benefits of tobacco, but it would be pretty unreasonable to try to use that fact as an indication that a modern understanding of the dangers of smoking is fundamentally flawed. Skepticism is a valuable tool, but skepticism that persists in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary and without good reason is just dogma.

Two things that might help me to come to a better understanding of what actual evidence you're basing your position on and whether or not it is a position worth considering:

1. What specific evidence would change your mind?

2. Would you mind linking some recent peer-reviewed literature that finds human emissions are not increasing the global mean temperature?

Trying to put this into the context of a 'reef tank'. Since 1880 the mean temperature has risen .8 degrees celsius. Depending on how the numbers are massaged, there was a 10 year pause in rise in the 2000s-2012 and now seems to be rising again. In our tanks, what i8s the average swing 'daily'. Is it enough to 'bleach coral'? What does the average 'reef' temperature differ from 12AM to 12 Noon on a sunny day? So - my problem is not that the temperature is rising - it is 'is that temperature rise causing a 'problem'. Granted there are many ways to measure mean temperature - ocean surface, atmospheric, etc.

My answer to your question #1 - is analysis that tries to put all of the factors into place - rather than a political agenda. I.e. what is natural variation, what is natural carbon emission, what relates to removal of forests in the rainforests, and what relates to cars in the US (or factories, etc) - which have many more pollution controls than other countries. Its funny I travel in Europe often - Why is it that they have entire industries built around removing 'dirt' (i.e. car emissions) from their old buildings? Where is that industry in the US? Point is - as someone said - Im all for sustainable energy and a clean environment. But - is changing to electric cars the answer - or is changing what the sugar industry does in Florida the issue when it comes to saving (at least) the Florida reefs. Its easy to say 'its climate change' when its really something else....

 

[biophilia]

There are two groups of climate change skeptics. Those who are skeptical of the science and those, like myself, who are skeptical of the solutions that have been put forth so far.

For what it's worth, I'd put myself pretty firmly in the second category as well. This is part of my frustration with the underlying science itself being framed as a political debate. Valuable perspectives and potential solutions are not brought to the table when entire groups of people dismiss the existence of the problem to begin with. We end up with tokenism, greenwashing, and solutions that are not pragmatic.

 

[biophilia]

Trying to put this into the context of a 'reef tank'. Since 1880 the mean temperature has risen .8 degrees celsius. Depending on how the numbers are massaged, there was a 10 year pause in rise in the 2000s-2012 and now seems to be rising again. In our tanks, what i8s the average swing 'daily'. Is it enough to 'bleach coral'? What does the average 'reef' temperature differ from 12AM to 12 Noon on a sunny day? So - my problem is not that the temperature is rising - it is 'is that temperature rise causing a 'problem'. Granted there are many ways to measure mean temperature - ocean surface, atmospheric, etc.

My answer to your question #1 - is analysis that tries to put all of the factors into place - rather than a political agenda. I.e. what is natural variation, what is natural carbon emission, what relates to removal of forests in the rainforests, and what relates to cars in the US (or factories, etc) - which have many more pollution controls than other countries. Its funny I travel in Europe often - Why is it that they have entire industries built around removing 'dirt' (i.e. car emissions) from their old buildings? Where is that industry in the US? Point is - as someone said - Im all for sustainable energy and a clean environment. But - is changing to electric cars the answer - or is changing what the sugar industry does in Florida the issue when it comes to saving (at least) the Florida reefs. Its easy to say 'its climate change' when its really something else....

Thanks for this. If you haven't read it, the IPCC AR5 summary is comprehensive and does just that. There are no mentions of politics - simply a summary of what is known, how it is known, and what emissions pathways are likely to achieve certain scenarios based on a summary of the best available evidence synthesized by hundreds of the experts from every nation on Earth. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 

[MnFish1]

For what it's worth, I'd put myself pretty firmly in the second category as well. This is part of my frustration with the underlying science itself being framed as a political debate. Valuable perspectives and potential solutions are not brought to the table when entire groups of people dismiss the existence of the problem to begin with. We end up with tokenism, greenwashing, and solutions that are not pragmatic.

I have listened to both sides of this for a long time. The news media likes to say the underlying science is a political debate. The debate seems to me to be not whether temperatures are rising - but what is the cause and what is the best way to 'fix it'. I'm sorry - I do not think it makes huge sense for Canada to be considering 'carbon exchanges' when other countries far more polluted and carbon emitting do little except want subsidies - but thats just my opinion. One side wants to spend billions of dollars many of whom have underlying interests in that spending (i.e. the carbon exchanges), and the other side has billions of dollars invested in the status quo.

BTW-an interesting aside. In austria where I have lived and worked, my friends continue to debate that burning wood in their own home 'ovens' for heat is less damaging to the environment than other methods. Yet they consider themselves quite progressive and far more advanced that 'the Americans'. Yet the valleys in the Alps in the with smog far worse than any city in the US I have ever seen...

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks for this. If you haven't read it, the IPCC AR5 summary is comprehensive and does just that. There are no mentions of politics - simply a summary of what is known, how it is known, and what emissions pathways are likely to achieve certain scenarios based on a summary of the best available evidence synthesized by hundreds of the experts from every nation on Earth. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Thanks - Yes I've read it. There is lots of information in there that so-called climate change deniers use as well. Whether they make cogent arguments or not I dont know lol but just saying.

I think the goal here is 'what is the best way to ensure that we (reefers) can continue to enjoy our hobby' with an idea towards conservation as well. Back to the OP - forget the cause or reason - the earth has gone through periods of cataclysm before - with extinctions, etc etc. I guess my 'denial' is that the things being proposed are actually going to help. Of course - it will take until long after all of us are dead to know that answer....

 

[biophilia]

I have listened to both sides of this for a long time. The news media likes to say the underlying science is a political debate. The debate seems to me to be not whether temperatures are rising - but what is the cause and what is the best way to 'fix it'. I'm sorry - I do not think it makes huge sense for Canada to be considering 'carbon exchanges' when other countries far more polluted and carbon emitting do little except want subsidies - but thats just my opinion. One side wants to spend billions of dollars many of whom have underlying interests in that spending (i.e. the carbon exchanges), and the other side has billions of dollars invested in the status quo.

BTW-an interesting aside. In austria where I have lived and worked, my friends continue to debate that burning wood in their own home 'ovens' for heat is less damaging to the environment than other methods. Yet they consider themselves quite progressive and far more advanced that 'the Americans'. Yet the valleys in the Alps in the with smog far worse than any city in the US I have ever seen...

Yeah, the wood burning thing drives me crazy. I see the same thing here in the states with environmentalists in yurts heating and cooking over wood stoves. PM 2.5 is so much more deadly than almost anything else on the planet in terms of sheer mortality numbers....

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Just checking, but is your point essentially that because some people were wrong at one point during the infancy of the field of climatology, we should discount the abundant evidence present now?

Abundant evidence for what exactly? And many people are still predicting increasing greenhouse gasses will cause an ice age.

Skepticism is a valuable tool, but skepticism that persists in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary and without good reason is just dogma.

Again, overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, about what exactly?

You seem to believe that all scientists all agree on some same exact concept. They don't, whatever that is, other than 2 x CO2 = 1°C.

Two things that might help me to come to a better understanding of what actual evidence you're basing your position on and whether or not it is a position worth considering:
1. What specific evidence would change your mind?

2. Would you mind linking some recent peer-reviewed literature that finds human emissions are not increasing the global mean temperature?

Let’s start with #2. I never said human emissions are not increasing the global mean temperature. I said they probably are, but there's no direct evidence to confirm the mild warming of the last 300 years or so is anything but natural. If any of that warming is due to increased greenhouse gasses it cannot determined how much is & isn't. It is up to the individual(s) making that claim that it is greenhouse warming, to provide the evidence. And an 'expert opinion' or 'a consensus', or a correlation is not science or evidence.

And #1.
What evidence would change my mind on what exactly? You’re not very specific at all. I've stated my position based on the theory they present & how it stands up against the evidence so far.
I can't ask you the same question because you've made no specific claims, other than I'm supposedly disagreeing with 10,000 scientists, & that’s not true & can’t be because they don’t all agree with each other.

Again, what I believe is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in the global average temperature of around 1°C. Maybe a tad more or less, depending on whether net feedback is a bit positive or negative. And the science is straight forward & settled on the fact that, however much warming 2 x CO2 results in, it would need to be increased by twice as much as before (doubled again from the new level) to get an equal response.

The science’s various & numerous climate modelling groups provide a range of projections for a doubling of CO2 of >>> 1.5°C to 4.5°C <<<, as promoted by the IPCC. The model spread is directly due to the high degree of uncertainty in the feedback response, primarily water vapour & cloud feedback.

Quote - Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5◦C to 4.5◦C. All the models on which these estimates are based possess strong (positive) water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact, substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important policy implications…”

This IPCC graph for model projections clearly shows how (c) well mixed greenhouse gases warm the tropical mid/upper troposphere at a significantly faster rate than the layers below down to the surface.

Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right).

IPCC: Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere (see Section 8.6.3.1), models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback….end

So, the models project water vapour feedback to be positive, to varying degrees, & this can be easily tested.

Greenhouse warming results in a significantly faster rate of warming in the upper troposphere than in the atmosphere below, down to the surface (negative lapse rate feedback). This warming in the upper tropical troposphere allows water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) to increase at that altitude (increase in humidity) & warms the upper tropical troposphere even more, raising the water vapour emissions layer (this is the altitude in the troposphere where water vapour no longer intercepts out going infrared radiation) to a higher altitude. This is positive water vapour feedback & it increases the direct warming from CO2 significantly.
Atmospheric Specific Humidity
Quote: Quote - Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. Models of the Earth’s climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. “…end

So what does the actual data show?

Radiosonde humidity data continues to show both specific & relative humidity declining in the mid/upper troposphere, not increasing. The opposite to the hypothesis projected by the models.
Atmospheric Moisture
Atmospheric Relative Humidity

Atmospheric Specific Humidity

The radiosonde temperature data also shows that the rate of temperature increase is not faster in the mid/upper troposphere than at the surface, as the positive water vapour hypothesis predicts, but slower. The opposite to the hypothesis projected by the models. And both the RSS & UAH satellite data sets show the same.

RSS Temperature Mid Troposphere TMT (tropics) Trend = 0.141K/decade
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere. TLT (tropics) Trend = 0.154K/decade

UAH Mid Tropical Troposphere. Trend = 0.08 http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
UAH Lower Tropical Troposphere. Trend = 0.12 http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

So the above shows the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis is wrong.

So this brings us to the models projected positive cloud feedback. And recall what the IPCC says quote “because of the inherently nonlinear nature of the response to feedbacks, the final impact on sensitivity is not simply the sum of these responses. The effect of multiple positive feedbacks is that they mutually amplify each other’s impact on climate sensitivity.”

Also IPCC: “The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.”..end
Well there are some of the models that predict negative cloud feedback, actually.

Did you notice in the last video I posted how they said increased humidity results in more cloud? That is negative cloud feedback, & that makes sense, where as positive cloud feedback to increased humidity does not.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
While trends of cloud cover are consistent between independent data sets in certain regions, substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence remains in the observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends. {2.5.6}

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/316.htm
the Second Assessment Report found that simulation of clouds and related processes remains a major source of uncertainty in atmospheric models. As discussed in Chapter 7, these processes continue to account for most of the uncertainty in predicting human-induced climate change.


Dr. Robert G. Brown of the Physics Department at Duke University
On water vapour feedback –
This last assumption (water vapour feedback) is finally dying a quiet and well deserved death. AFAIK, it is due to Hansen, who in his original papers predicting disaster assumed universally positive water vapor feedback (and for no particularly scientifically motivated reason that I can see, hypothesized truly absurd levels of water vapor feedback that doubled or tripled the CO_2-only warming of his then very simple models). Naturally, some of the GCMs out there have built into them parametric assumptions that preserve this much “climate sensitivity” — total ACO_2 warming plus feedback, usually at the expense of an overdriven response to e.g. volcanic aerosols necessary to explain periods of global cooling and to keep the model from having a runaway exponential instability (because one has to have a mechanism that keeps positive feedback water vapor from causing increase of water vapor without bound just from FLUCTUATIONS in water vapor content or global temperature — the climate cannot be a biased random walk where every time the temperature goes up a bit, average water vapor increases and hence resets the Earth’s average temperature a bit higher unless a competing process can completely erase the gain when the temperature fluctuates down a bit).

At the moment, estimates of climate sensitivity are struggling to retain any net positive feedback from water vapor in the face of data that already solidly excludes the kind of absurd feedback levels Hansen originally hypothesized. Even the question of net negative feedback from water vapor, long considered to be anathema in climate science (except for a few mavericks who managed to publish papers suggesting that clouds could easily lead to net negative feedback through the dual mechanism of latent heat transport and modulation of albedo) is no longer completely off of the table.


A Test of the Tropical 200-300 mb Warming Rate in Climate Models by Ross McKitrick
We confirmed, among other things, that based on modern econometric testing methods the gap between models and observations in the tropical troposphere is statistically significant.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/

Are Climate Models Overstating Warming? by Ross McKitrick
Summary
Millar et al. attracted controversy for stating that climate models have shown too much warming in recent decades, even though others (including the IPCC) have said the same thing. Zeke Hausfather disputed this using an adjustment to model outputs developed by Cowtan et al. The combination of the adjustment and the recent El Nino creates a visual impression of coherence. But other measures not affected by the issues raised in Cowtan et al. support the existence of a warm bias in models. Gridcell extreme frequencies in CMIP5 models do not overlap with observations. And satellite-measured temperature trends in the lower troposphere run below the CMIP5 rates in the same way that the HadCRUT4 surface data do, including in the tropics. The model-observational discrepancy is real, and needs to be taken into account especially when using models for policy guidance.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/


How inconstant are climate feedbacks – and does it matter? by Nic Lewis
Conclusions
It has in fact been found that when CMIP5 models are forced with specified SST anomalies matching the pattern of warming over the historical period, they produce net climate feedbacks of the order of 2 Wm-2K-1, closely consistent with the modest ECS best estimates from good observationally-based energy budget studies.[18] The real questions seem to be why do AOGCMs simulate very different warming patterns under increased CO2 concentration than those that have actually occurred during the historical period, and why do their net feedback strengths differ so much between these warming patterns.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/18/how-inconstant-are-climate-feedbacks-and-does-it-matter/


New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low
April 24th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Global warming “problem” cut by 50%
As readers here are aware, I don’t usually critique published climate papers unless they are especially important to the climate debate. Too many papers are either not that important, or not that convincing to me.
The holy grail of the climate debate is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS): just how much warming (and thus associated climate change) will occur in response to an eventual doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
Yesterday’s early online release of a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry (“The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity“, Journal of Climate) represents one of those seminal papers.
It is an extension of a previously published paper by Lewis & Curry, adding more data, and addressing criticisms of their earlier work. Its methodology isn’t entirely original, since previous (but somewhat preliminary) work along the same lines (Otto et al., 2013) has resulted in observational estimates of relatively low climate sensitivity compared to the IPCC climate models.
But what is notable to me is (1) the comprehensive extent to which methodological and data uncertainties have been addressed, and (2) the fact it was published in the relatively mainstream and consensus-defending Journal of Climate.
Basically, the paper concludes that the amount of surface and deep-ocean warming that has occurred since the mid- to late-1800s is consistent with low equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to an assumed doubling of atmospheric CO2. They get a median estimate of 1.66 deg. C (1.50 deg. C without uncertain infilled Arctic data), which is only about half of the average of the IPCC climate models. It is just within the oft-quoted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C that the IPCC has high confidence ECS should occupy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/

 

[biophilia]

@Scrubber_steve It seemed fairly obvious to me, but my apologies for being unclear. You stated earlier that it's not possible to attribute any of the recent warming to anything but natural variability. What I'm asking for is a single (or ideally a few) peer-reviewed paper(s) published, say, in the 21st century that specifically reach that conclusion. My B.S. detector starts beeping when I ask someone to simply copy and paste the URL of a single peer-reviewed source and I get 1000+ word response filled with graphs and complex explanations and no citations that aren't personal blogs.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

@Scrubber_steve It seemed fairly obvious to me, but my apologies for being unclear. You stated earlier that it's not possible to attribute any of the recent warming to anything but natural variability. What I'm asking for is a single (or ideally a few) peer-reviewed paper(s) published, say, in the 21st century that specifically reach that conclusion. My B.S. detector starts beeping when I ask someone to simply copy and paste the URL of a single peer-reviewed source and I get 1000+ word response filled with graphs and complex explanations and no citations that aren't personal blogs.

you're the one making the assertion that it can be prooved, so you put up the evidence