Arguments
How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response
The skeptic argument...
IPCC is alarmist
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer)
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response. |
|||||
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change."
Climate scientist Roy Spencer made this statement. He starts by suggesting something highly questionable isn’t open to being questioned. What he seeks to do is suggest, by inference, that the IPCC has an agenda, and this distorts the reports they produce. In other words, Spencer (and others) suggest that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It is perfectly legitimate to question this assertion, since Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.
Some critics go further, suggesting that the IPCC actively suppresses science that doesn’t support the theory that climate change is being caused by human activities. It is notable this ‘other science’ is rarely produced to support the accusation.
Does the IPCC accurately report the findings of science?
The IPCC was formed to report on a broad range of scientific enquiries into the climate, and our effects on it, and to summarise the science for laypeople. The science they summarise is published so it is simple to compare the primary science with the IPCC reports, and compare both to what actually took place.
There are numerous instances where the IPCC reports, which are summaries of published climate change science, have understated the case - hardly suggesting exaggeration in pursuit of an agenda. Here are some examples:
-
CO2 output from fossil fuels: observed emissions are close to the worst-case projections made by the IPCC, despite them offering a range of potential emission scenarios. (In fact, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years).
-
Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted. Actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. By 2100 sea-level rise was predicted by the IPCC to be in the range of 18-59 cm. It is now believed that figure may be far too low, because estimates of contributions from Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps were excluded from AR4 because the data was not considered reliable. (This omission hardly supports the notion that the IPCC seeks to exaggerate global warming trends).
-
Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating.
-
The body of scientific literature has consistently shown that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more global surface warming than has been observed over the past half century, whereas the IPCC only says that greenhouse gases are responsible for "most" observed warming over this timeframe.
In many similar cases, the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious.
In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported. A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. They found that "...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media".
Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case.
Last updated on 29 November 2012 by John Cook. View Archives
I don't think you've read the paper.
However, just because concentrations are strongest near there source, and fall of rapidly with distance does not mean emissions do not result in significant concentrations hundreds of miles away, or that relatively remote locations will not have sufficient concentration to track changes in emissions. Indeed, if you look at the record for aerosol emissions (center top), you will see that individual cities are not clearly delineated by the concentrations, as would be the case if their typical transit distance was limited to 10 kilometers. In that way, aerosols are different from NO2 (left top), where individual industrial centers are easily delineated. What is more, significant concentrations of aerosols are still found a couple of hundred miles of the coast, again showing the absurdity of the 10 km claim made by Krisbaum.
So, once again, while Krisbaum purports to have a problem with the IPCC citing Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" on falsification, and Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" on paradigm shifts (just two of the very dubious claims of inadequate literature from Krisbaum's favourite source), he has no problem with citing non-academic websites and simply making "facts" up in support of his argument. Why then do we continue to tolerate his sloganeering? His own words have thoroughly discredited him; as has his refusal to look at the particular use made of particular citations for which he condemns the IPCC.
Rob @102 - Bushfires for example generate huge amounts of carbon monoxide.
'Anthropogenic atmospheric aerosols are believed to be a significant climate forcing
agent, probably second only to greenhouse gases in their effect on global temperature in the past
century [Houghton et al., 2001]. However, the history of atmospheric aerosols is not nearly as
well known as that of most gases because of the short atmospheric lifetime of aerosols and thus
their very heterogeneous spatial distribution. Moreover, the climate effect of aerosols is
complex, as some aerosols cause cooling while others are believed to cause warming.' page 3.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/July-2004/Historical-changes.pdf
There are certain minimum standards of conduct necessary for any rational discussion - honesty, consistent standards for your self and others, a willingness to cite relevant information etc. You have shown yourself consistently unwilling to abide by any such standard. Consequently my discussion with you is over.
Until you undertake to show why it was reprehensible of the IPCC to cite Agassiz as the originator of the theory of ice ages; or to cite Newton's letter to Hooke in 1675 as the source of the famous quotation about standing on the shoulders of giants (two more of the supposedly dubious citations according to your favourite source), or admit that the quality of citations cannot be determined simply by looking at the immediate source and that your favourite source used a massively flawed methodology which is completely unable to justify the conclusions you, and they draw from it, there is nothing more to say.
[Source]
It looks to me like kris is citing from (maybe) a pre-press version of the paper (?). I find it interesting that that line was removed.
What will be the ultimate bottom line if krisbaum is correct in feeling misled by Pachauri? Would it mean anything where WG1, WG2, or WG3 are concerned? And although it's probably against comment policy, I'll wager krisbaum has no problem with (-Snip-), and those are much more damaging than anything Pachauri has to say about bloody grey literature (as one can see from the variety of mainstream media outlets that are seemingly plugged directly into WUWT).
It is fairly obvious from recent discussions that my quotation above still applies, everbody is correct in disputing '10km' - as an arbitrary number like this, argue you may but the point still stands that (-Snip-).
[DB] It is very obvious from recent discussions that your quotation above is still invalid. The intercontinental reach & dispersion of aerosols has been amply demonstrated.
Either finish your homework from comments 81 and 94 above or cede those points by declaring your position invalid.
Off-topic diversion snipped.
Here's a study that casts doubt on what you say just from the abstract. The study measures the 72 hour trajectory of a cloud of SO2 that extends 1600 meters from the surface. If the mass of SO2 travels for 72 hours and only goes 10km, that means it is traveling at the extremely fast rate of about 139 meters per hour. Possible, but not probable.
This study worries about an oil refinery being built 30km away from the Taj Mahal and what the emissions will do to the structure. Why did they even perform the study? It's common knowledge that human-sourced aerosols only travel 10km.
These were just two of the first few on google scholar. I can do more of your work for you if you require it.
My original assertion about aerosols was to do with a lack of records pertaining to their levels - hence the high amount of high uncertainty in their values. [Anthropogenic] Aerosols are concentrated at their source and depending on their type (eg. Sulphates or Black Carbon etc) - they travel varied distances from their source but a geo-spacial representation of their concentrations in the atmosphere is required to estimate their impact on climate change.
[DB] Actually, your original assertion about aerosols was made here and was this:
"Has anybody actually investigated further, for example the findings on Aerosols and why the IPCC believe what the range of aersol forcing is thats stated in their 4AR?"
You did not make the assertion about aerosols that you claim until 4 ½ hours later, here.
[DB] This has gone on long enough. As has been noted several times already, finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above. You will be allowed no further podium to waste the time of others here until that work is completed.
Argumentative and sloganeering snipped.
I just did and you deleted them.
Fiedler et al, 2009 discuss the observation of a SO2 pollution plume just of the west coast of Ireland. That pollution plume came from China. In fact, it was not the only plume they found at that location. They found another, lower plume from North America as well, as shown in this diagram:
You will notice the Chinese plume has approximately half the concentration North American Plume. Its greater altitude and thickness, however, suggests it would have greater than half the cooling effect of the North American plume. This suggests that it would make an appreciable impact on the atmospheric energy balance at that time and location.
Below is a modeled distribution of Chinese SO2 based on known weather patterns at the time of observation. Again, notice that the concentration of SO2 in the plume is only around 40% of that over China, again signifying an appreciable impact on the energy balance:
Despite the high concentration of the plume half way around the world, occurrences of plumes from China at that location would be sporadic, whereas the plume over China itself would be constant throughout the year. As a result, averaged over the year, concentrations over China would be large compared to those over the North Atlantic. But that in no way justifies Krisbaum's rather silly claims, and it certainly does not justify his supposition that SO2 concentrations in Greenland ice cores are a poor proxy of SO2 emissions over Europe and North America.
As we have seen, there is no question that SO2 plumes can be carried more than half way around the world - let alone half way across the world's narrowest ocean to Greenland.