We can obtain this «long - term» climate sensitivity
from paleoclimate data by finding the scale factor that causes the GHG forcing to match the paleoclimate temperature change as accurately as possible.
For all the talk about CO2, there is a surprising lack
of paleoclimate data on that peskly gas, but what I have been able to find is interesting.
Paleoclimate data for sea level change indicate that sea level changed at rates of the order of a meter per century [81]--[83], even at times when the forcings driving climate change were far weaker than the human - made forcing.
These conclusions are based on
paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount.
The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends
with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former «has been used to produce the «hockey stick graph»».
We suggest that the best constraint on actual climate sensitivity is provided
by paleoclimate data that imply a sensitivity 3 ± 1 °C for 2 CO2 [Hansen et al., 1984, 1993, 1997b; Hoffert and Covey, 1992].
Although not part of our study, high -
resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~ 130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189 - 193).
And that is a very bad thing,
because paleoclimate data tells us that the Pliocene regime 5 mil years ago had 15 meter higher sea level.
The researchers make their case in part by
describing paleoclimate data from the Eemian, an interglacial (warm) period that lasted from about 130,000 to 115,000 years ago.
In order to predict future changes in climate, scientists verify and refine their models
against paleoclimate data from the ice cores Taylor and others pull up.
One approach to answer these important questions is the investigation of
paleoclimate data like the ancient alkenones analyzed by van der Bilt and colleagues.
A best estimate of climate sensitivity close to 3 °C for doubled CO2 has been inferred from paleoclimate data [51]--[52].
Paleoclimate data also provide quantitative information about how nominally slow feedback processes amplify climate sensitivity [51]--[52], [54]--[56], which also is important to our analyses.
I see no reason why tropical rainforests will die when
paleoclimate data tells us that they covered more area in the time when temperatures where higher than today.
As far as # 2 goes, ice core data is used for
recent paleoclimate data on CO2 concentration, nothing much earlier than about 1000 years ago, because of the errors inherent in the ice core data.
In a few cases they rely on subjective interpretation of questionable
reconstructed paleoclimate data from selected periods of our geological past, rather than on empirical data based on actual, real - time physical observations or reproducible experimentation..
This of course brings me to my major complaint about using
paleoclimate data as a way to help set limits on today's climate sensitivity.
Paleoclimate data point to a warm tropical ocean with a clear east - west temperature gradient during the warm climates of the Pliocene and Miocene.
Recently
published paleoclimate data show that conditions in the Near East became more arid during the latter half of the 7th century BC.
I'm still reading this para (Page 4) as a gaff: «
Paleoclimate data permit evaluation of long - term sensitivity to specified GHG change.
Characteristics in
paleoclimate data occurring prior to industrial revolution can not, by definition, be attributed to anthropogenic forcing.
As a geologist, I can't help but wonder whether the huge influx of
paleoclimate data represented by Vostok and similar ice cores might not drive us to a new consensus, much as new information about the sea floor revolutionized thinking about the movement of continents (and later «plates») on the surface of the dynamic earth.
Paleoclimate data do provide a means to constrain the tail on the distribution and perhaps to show the likelihood of large values of S is lower than Roe and Baker's calculations suggest.
The feedbacks, including subsurface ocean warming, help
explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level.
In this manner, Hansen and Sato use climate models to help them estimate past radiative forcings and surface temperature changes using
paleoclimate data without influencing their climate sensitivity estimates.
This team of 78 regional experts from more than 60 institutions representing 24 countries, working with the most
extensive paleoclimate data set yet, produced the most comprehensive Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction to date.