Hi Jim--No need for a back and forth. I did not mean to dismiss your calculation of sensitivity possibly being 4.5 C and don't disagree that the set of parameters used in models now do tend toward yielding a 3 C sensitivity. Indeed, I found your latest results very interesting, high as the sensitivity seems if one goes back to when the CO2 concentration is thought to be 4 or more times preindustrial.

In my interactions with Ron and others, I was interpreting their remarks to be saying that the climate sensitivity was directly specified as 3 C in the models independent of how the processes work and come together, and I wanted to say that that is not the case. At least that was what I was intending to say. I should perhaps have made more clear your point that some of the parameters in the existing model should, based on the time history of observations and seeking to match the model results to them could well be indicating that different parameters regarding cloud feedback are likely the case and this could lead to the higher sensitivity and improved the match to the multiple types of observations that you consider.

Good luck for your move back to New York City.

Best, Mike

On 5/19/25 8:00 PM, James Hansen wrote:
Hi Mike et al.,

I can't get involved in a back-and-forth -- we are in the process of moving back to NYC, to live in a Columbia apartment to avoid time wasted in commuting and taking care of a house/property. However, I'm surprised by your comment, Mike. Most GCM groups make hundreds, if not more, GCM runs between one IPCC report and the next, and there are hundreds, if not more, model parameters. There is a widespread, if not universal, tendency to prefer those model configurations that yield a magnitude of warming in the past 200 years that is consistent with observations. In this way, wittingly or not, the 3C sensitivity is "baked into" the models -- because, as we showed in our "Acceleration" the usual aerosol forcing employed is close to the IPCC best estimate for aerosol forcing. As shown by a graph in the Supplementary Information of our paper, the change of the IPCC aerosol forcing during the period of rapid warming is negligible. In such case, the climate sensitivity required to match the observed warming rate is ~3C for 2xCO2. However, if the aerosol forcing increased by ~0.5 W/m2 (became more negative) during 1970-2005, as simulated by Bauer et al. and as independently inferred in our paper, then a climate sensitivity of ~4.5C is required to match the observed warming.

However, the temperature change in the last 200 years is only one of the three independent ways that we obtain the 4.5C sensitivity, and the other two are much cleaner, independent of the GCM issues.

High climate sensitivity demanded by large cloud feedback, clearly shown by Earth's darkening in the past 25 years, is summarized in the recent communication to my email list.

The third method is described in our "Global warming in the pipeline" paper: comparison of equilibrium glacial and interglacial climates. For several decades, based largely on CLIMAP and "confirmed" by MARGO, it was believed that the LGM was only 3-4C colder than the Holocene. Thanks especially to Alan Seltzer, we now know that the LGM was 6-7C colder, which demands the higher ECS -- several new paleo studies confirm the high ECS.

Best, Jim

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 3:39 PM 'Michael MacCracken' via geoengineering <[email protected]> wrote:

    Ron et al.--Just a note that the 3 C sensitivity is not "embedded"
    in the climate models. That is the value that emerges from the
    representations of the various physical processes that play out
    against each other. So, assuming the observations and resulting
    analyses are accurate, for there to be a higher sensitivity, it
    might be that some of the processes are not parameterized in a way
    that fully represents possibilities and realities (observations to
    calibrate parameterizations can be drawn from only the conditions
    we are experiencing), some processes are not represented at all
    (viewed as long-term such as isostatic rebound, etc.), the
    resolution of the models is not fine enough to treat aspects of
    the processes, etc. In any case, however, the 3 C sensitivity is
    not built into the models.

    Mike

    On 5/19/25 1:49 PM, Ron Baiman wrote:
    Thank you LDM and Dan,

    @LDM:

    (IMO) Thanks for sharing!  IMO this recent Hansen and Kharecha
    Newsletter with further evidence supporting a climate sensitivity
    of 4.5 rather than the established IPCC value of 3.0 that is (as
    I understand it) embedded in most current climate models, is
    excellent and should be widely distributed, per these last two
    paragraphs:

    "Criticisms of the Acceleration paper in the media did not
    address the physics in our three assessments of
    climate sensitivity. Instead, criticisms were largely ad hoc
    opinions, even ad hominem attacks. How can
    science reporting have descended to this level? Climate science
    is now so complex, with many sub-
    disciplines, that the media must rely on opinions of climate
    experts. Although there are thousands of
    capable scientists in these disciplines, the media have come to
    depend on a handful of scientists, a clique
    of climate scientists who are willing, or even eager, to be the
    voice of the climate science community.
    But are they representative of the total community, of capable
    scientists who focus on climate science?
    We have lamented9 the absence of scientists with the breadth of
    understanding of say Jule Charney or
    Francis Bretherton,10 or our beloved, sometimes crotchety, former
    colleague, Wally Broecker. However,
    the truth is that there are many scientists out there with a
    depth of understanding at least as great as the
    clique of scientists that the media rely on. Given the success of
    this clique in painting us as outliers, we
    are dependent on the larger community being willing to help
    educate the media about the current climate
    situation. For that purpose, we will discuss – one-by-one in
    upcoming communications – several of the
    matters that are raised in our papers. Thanks for your attention."

    @Dan:  Thanks for sharing!  I will definitely give this a listen!

    Best,
    Ron


    On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:04 PM LDM <[email protected]> wrote:


        https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf


        Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity
        James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha
        13 May 2025

        Abstract.

        Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) declined over the 25 years of
        precise satellite data, with the decline so large that this
        change must be mainly reduced reflection of sunlight by
        clouds. Part of the cloud change is caused by reduction of
        human-made atmospheric aerosols, which act as condensation
        nuclei for cloud formation, but most of the cloud change is
        cloud feedback that occurs with global warming. The observed
        albedo change proves that clouds provide a large, amplifying,
        climate feedback. This large cloud feedback confirms high
        climate sensitivity, consistent with paleoclimate data and
        with the rate of global warming in the past century.


        https://youtu.be/NxV1IbHt7fU


          When Will We Go Over 2ºC? & Hansen's Cloud Update

        <https://www.youtube.com/@climatechat>


        On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 9:09 PM Ron Baiman
        <[email protected]> wrote:

            Wow!  Thanks for sharing Renaud. I haven't read it but
            from the abstract  it (very unfortunate for all of us
            humans and most other species, but not really surprising
            for many of us humans) looks like forecasts of Hansen et
            al. 2024 are being vindicated!
            Best,
            Ron


            On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 9:51 AM Renaud de RICHTER
            <[email protected]> wrote:

                Earth's Energy Imbalance More Than Doubled in Recent
                Decades
                https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024AV001636



                    Abstract

                Global warming results from anthropogenic greenhouse
                gas emissions which upset the delicate balance
                between the incoming sunlight, and the reflected and
                emitted radiation from Earth. The imbalance leads to
                energy accumulation in the atmosphere, oceans and
                land, and melting of the cryosphere, resulting in
                increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and more
                extreme weather around the globe. Despite the
                fundamental role of the energy imbalance in
                regulating the climate system, as known to humanity
                for more than two centuries, our capacity to observe
                it is rapidly deteriorating as satellites are being
                decommissioned.


                    Key Points

                 *

                    Earth's energy imbalance more than doubled in
                    recent decades

                 *

                    The large trend has taken us by surprise, and as
                    a community we should strive to understand the
                    underlying causes

                 *

                    Our capability to observe the Earth's energy
                    imbalance and budget terms is threatened as
                    satellites are decommissioned


                    Plain Language Summary

                Global warming is caused by the imbalance between the
                incoming radiation from the Sun and the reflected and
                outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth. The
                imbalance leads to energy accumulation in the
                atmosphere, oceans and land, and melting of the
                cryosphere, resulting in increasing temperatures,
                rising sea levels, and more extreme weather around
                the globe according the the United Nations
                Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
                Observations from space of the energy imbalance shows
                that it is rising much faster than expected, and in
                2023 it reached values two times higher than the best
                estimate from IPCC. We argue that we must strive to
                better understand this fundamental change in Earth's
                climate state, and ensure our capacity to monitor it
                in the future.


-- You received this message because you are subscribed
                to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition
                (HPAC)" group.
                To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
                emails from it, send an email to
                [email protected].
                To view this discussion visit
                
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHodn9-e2iCfiPJYDRnv2TTcjgCueetUw9Fs83Tp48B2gA0jJA%40mail.gmail.com
                
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAHodn9-e2iCfiPJYDRnv2TTcjgCueetUw9Fs83Tp48B2gA0jJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.



-- Healthy Planet Action Coalition
            <http://www.healthyplanetaction.org>
            YouTube Channel
            <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdt5vatByfyg-Pm9Vu6ahZg>
            @HPACoalition  (Bluesky and Twitter/X)
            Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling:
            Rationale and Options
            <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae014/7731760>
            Baiman et al. 2024. /Oxford Open Climate Change/
            An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport
            that Cools the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality
            Benefits
            <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251>.
            Baiman et al. 2024. /Oxford Open Climate Change/



-- Healthy Planet Action Coalition <http://www.healthyplanetaction.org>
    YouTube Channel
    <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdt5vatByfyg-Pm9Vu6ahZg>
    @HPACoalition  (Bluesky and Twitter/X)
    Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale
    and Options
    <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae014/7731760>
    Baiman et al. 2024. /Oxford Open Climate Change/
    An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that
    Cools the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits
    <https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae008/7706251>.
    Baiman et al. 2024. /Oxford Open Climate Change/
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
    Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
    send an email to [email protected].
    To view this discussion visit
    
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CnQHnNxxw0m238XK9mxSatsHedxndUf7vO0KoQkVeiXQ%40mail.gmail.com
    
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CnQHnNxxw0m238XK9mxSatsHedxndUf7vO0KoQkVeiXQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "geoengineering" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
    send an email to [email protected].
    To view this discussion visit
    
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4e23a031-1d90-429f-b962-a428e82fc7ac%40comcast.net
    
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4e23a031-1d90-429f-b962-a428e82fc7ac%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.



--
Jim Hansen, Director
Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program
Columbia University Earth Institute

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vM1eBgxrNdGNjtUOKv75kMx43UgfVnEu-T06SL7wOhYDQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEL%2B3vM1eBgxrNdGNjtUOKv75kMx43UgfVnEu-T06SL7wOhYDQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/73531a5a-0b88-46ee-95c8-00a4cde059af%40comcast.net.

Reply via email to