Recent Comments

Prev  646  647  648  649  650  651  652  653  654  655  656  657  658  659  660  661  Next

Comments 32651 to 32700:

32651. wili at 22:08 PM on 15 November 2014
       Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
       

       I assumed "low carbon sources" meant essentially all non-fossil fuel sources--hydro and nukes as well as wind, solar and other renewables. But perhaps the openness of the term does leave them some wiggle room for interpretation.

32652. MA Rodger at 20:11 PM on 15 November 2014
       More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
       

       Moderator Response @21.

       The document rather confusingly has the title "Introduction", it being Chapter 1 of IPCC AR5 WG1. I am at a loss as to the relevance of the point the commenter Russ R. is attempting to make. The IPCC themselves describe in that reference that estimates for as-then future CH4 emissions in AR4 were too low. Russ R. presents this as the IPCC being "wrong," saying "methane is turning out to be not as big a climate issue as we were told it would be." Yet I fail to see any "big climate issue" that has been mis-described. Whatever the point he attempts to make, the "issue" Russ R. describes can only amount to an underestimation in climate forcing of some 0.02Wm^-2 which is not what anybody would call "big" in climate terms.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Thank you for identifying the document. Not all of our readers are climate science-wonks who would recognize the document by merely viewing its content.

       Re Russ R's modus operandi: As noted by gws @22, he/she seems to be fishing for red herrings. Some might call that trolling which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. 

32653. Tom Curtis at 17:31 PM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh @332:

       "The newer ambient temperature microbolometers are sensitive to the entire range of CO2′s emission wavelengths and they work perfectly, due to the fact that at normal pressures and temperatures CO2′s emissivity is somewhere around 0.0019."

       We have long passed the point where Satoh is ready to say any absurd thing to defend his clearly mistaken original claims.  One of those original claims was, in support of a merely distracting (and confusing if adopted) terminological preference, that "the 15 micron IR band radiates from earth's surface and is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in the lowest level of the atmosphere (the elevation of extinction is around 500 feet)".  As the 15 micron bandwidth is significant for any near room temperature thermal emission, this contradicts his claim about the emissivity of CO2 "at normal pressures and temperatures".  He may be misleadingly citing CO2's emissivity across all wavelengths rather than relative to wavelengths with significant thermal emissions at room temperatures, but then his claim is misleadingly phrased (at the least).

       More to the point, IR microbolometers typically are tuned to the 7.5-14 micron bandwidth (ie, the atmospheric window as shown in the graph at 329).  This is claimed to be the case by wikipedia, by Laser Focus World, and by Optics.org.  While micro-bolometers can be, and have been tuned to other wavelengths, I have not found a single example tuned to dominant wavelengths for room temperature thermal emission which was not also tuned to the atmospheric window.  Unless Satoh can provide citations with wavelengths specified in microns to at least one decimal place (or equivalently accurately specified frequencies), I have to suspect his claim is bogus.

        "Your argument where you discount the N band because some days are cloudy is what we all know of as straw man argument. We obviously are not talking about cloud."

       As we are discussing globally averaged emissions to space, the claim that clouds are a "straw man argument" can be dismissed as rather brazen bluster.  That is, unless Satoh is going to seriously argue either that the Earth has no clouds, or that clouds no not absorb IR radiation ;) 

32654. Satoh at 16:13 PM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       I suggest you familiarize yourself with all the bands. J, K and N are not the only ones. The newer microbolometers don't operate in the J or K band anyway, the energy consumed by the cryogenic cooling system proved prohibitive, even if you cool with liquid helium the weight would not permit use on drones. The newer ambient temperature microbolometers are sensitive to the entire range of CO2′s emission wavelengths and they work perfectly, due to the fact that at normal pressures and temperatures CO2′s emissivity is somewhere around 0.0019. The only thing operators ever worry about is water vapor, and never breathe a word about CO2, because the relative contribution of CO2 to skyglow is nill compared to H2O. Your argument where you discount the N band because some days are cloudy is what we all know of as straw man argument. We obviously are not talking about cloud.

32655. One Planet Only Forever at 11:13 AM on 15 November 2014
       Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
       

       Another point to keep in mind about the planned USA emissions reductions is the choice by the US to talk about reductions relative to 2005 levels. Though European emissions in 2005 were not significantly lower than they were in 2005, the US emissions in 2005 were about 17% higher than 1990. So the US reductions of 17% by 2020 and 27% by 2025 may seem comparable to the EU reduction of 40% relative to 1990 levels by 2030, but it really isn't. The use of 1990 as the basis for reporting emissions does not 'suit the interests of the USA' since it deliberately increased its activity to benefit from burning the stuff after admitting such activity was unacceptable.

       Canada behaved even worse. In 2005 Canada's emissions were more than 25% higher than they were in 1990. And Canada isn't even close to meeting the commitment made by its Conservative government, 17% reduction by 2020. And Canada's Conservative Government has not only failed to reduce Canada's emissions, they are pushing the sale of buried hydrocarbons from Canada to other places to be burned.

       I am also a little suspicious that the agreement says China will have 20% of its energy from 'low carbon' sources. Why does that mean? Why does it not say '20% of its energy from sources that do burn fossil fuels'? Burning natural gas still produces half the CO2 impact of burning coal. But is 50% of the impact of coal, which really is still creating significant impact, what they mean by 'low carbon'?.

32656. gws at 10:39 AM on 15 November 2014
       More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
       

       Russ, you made a point, but your comments remain pushing a red herring.

       While the natural sources in the global budget dominate, they are less constrained than the man-made sources. The review paper I suggested reading, which was published after the IPCC AR5 report, shows that the global wetland source is the one typically overestimated. Since the projections can only rely on the bottom-up models, and those are overestimating emissions mostly due to the natural wetland source, the projections are too high (models assume the wetland source to increase with increasing T).

       The projection for the man-made sources was also slightly overestimated in the past, while the estimate for fossil fuel related emissions remained nearly constant (and the source was likely near constant in teh last 30 years), and one can speculate about why pre-AR5 projections did not take that into account (one reason is that most of this is very new research, not available before 2008). But that is irrelevant with respect to the renewed increase.

       Using the fallacy of harking on a point at best remotely related to this article, you are seen as attempting to distract from the facts I outlined above. I consider that trolling and thus will not respond further to that line of "argument".

32657. Tom Curtis at 09:46 AM on 15 November 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       TallDave @24:

       1)

       "Emissions (especially of CO2) rose like Scenario A."

       Not according to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate:

       

       Or  Tamino at Open Mind:

       

       Or Dana at Skeptical Science:

       

       Or Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

       

       What distinguishes all four from TallDave is that they have actually consulted the concentration data for the three scenarios, and done the calculations and compared them to observed changes in radiative forcing.  All show actual forcings due to greenhouse gases slightly less than that for Scenario B, with the exception of Tamino who compares to all forcings (except volcanic) and finds the result slightly less than scenario C.  (Note: he is not in disagreement with the others, he merely makes a different comparison.)

       As can be seen from Steve McIntyre's graph, and in the following graph from Dana, while growth in CO2 (and NO2) was close to that predicted in Scenario A, growth in other greenhouse gases was way below that predicted for scenario A so that the total forcing was significantly less than that in Scenario A.

        

       (Note with respect to Dana's graph:  Hansen 1988 included the value of a host of minor greenhouse gases by the expedient of doubling the concentration of CFC 11 and CFC 12.  Because Dana compares to the actual values of CFC 11 and 12, he leaves out these other minor gases.  The actual growth in GHG radiative forcing is slightly greater than shown in Dana's graph.)

       The growth in CO2 concentration is close, but not the same as that in Hansen's scenario A.  Specifically, throughout the 1990s growth in CO2 was less than projected in scenario C.  Since then, the growth rate has exceeded that in Scenario A so that concentrations have recently risen to about the scenario A level (and will soon exeed it if it has not already) - a pattern that can be seen in the EPA graph.  The lower initial growth results in a lower initial radiative forcing, and hence a lower initial temperature growth that will not be eliminated for several years due to the thermal inertia of the ocean.

       This is one of many topics in climate science where the common pseudo-skeptical opinion (as presented by Dave) cannot be honestly sustained except by the expedient of not checking the data.  Comments such as Dave's are therefore always either insincere, or misinformed.  Given the copious sources of information to the contrary, if misinformed by somebody who maintains some knowledge on the topic (as TallDave clearly does), then they are negligently misinformed.

       2)  TallDave quotes a small portion of the congressional testimony from a section of which I have already quoted at length.  It comes just before the section I bolded, a section which makes quite clear that the the purpose in mentioning the scenarios was simply to explain the features of the graph, not to draw any conclusions from it.  In other words, in response to my extensive quotation, TallDave's only response is a small out of context quotation that fails to address any of the points I raised.  Therefore it requires no further refutation.

       His rhetorical question regarding Scenaro C is shown to be less than candid by the fact that the common opinion of those who have analysed the data is that the observed GHG forcings most closely match scenario B.

       3)

       "Obviously because they're the only ones that can be tested on any meaningful time scale. Contra this site, the ability of a model to hindcast a highly complex phenemonen gives little confidence in its forecast (something painfully well-known in other fields)."

       Contrary to TallDave's missinformed epistemology, there is no logical difference between forecasting and hindcasting.  The only additional epistemic support to be obtained from successfull forecasting is forecasting is by its nature immune to overfitting the data.  With GCMs, the number of parameters is very small relative to the number of predicted variables.  That is not the case if you only pay attention to GMST, which is why pseudo-skeptics only consider GMST (plus a few other cherry picked data) for comparison to models, whereas climate scientists validate models against a large range of observed data.  That is also, by the way why there is an approximately 15% mismatch between hindcast GMST model and observed trends over the last thirty years.  The models are not fitted to obtain that result (for if they were, they could get a better match), but obtain that near match anyway.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] To all commentators on this thread. Please note the comments policy:

       "No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around."

       The tone in this thread is getting heated. Please step back, concentrate on the science and avoid throwing accusations around. This will ensure noone oversteps the mark.

32658. Stephen Baines at 08:43 AM on 15 November 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       "Stephen — Of course emissions are central to his testimony. Without the assignment of emissions scenarios, A B and C are just random points on a graph, chosen for no particular reason, with no relevance to policy."

       Not if his main point, As Tom C points out, was establishing the role of humans in climate change to that point, and not on the future projections. TC has deliberated on the testimony itself. You should address his points, not simply make an assumption based on your impression of the role the graph must have played based on what is in it. I'm not saying that his presentation was not intended to get congress to act on emissions, mind you, just that his testimony focused on whether the observed temp change was human caused, and not on those scenarios.

       "Exactly my point, thank you. Hansen made predictions about things he could not know."

       As KR points out,  he used what-if scenarios precisely because he could not predict future GHG development. That is the whole point of scenarios, and lack of certainty about the future is implicit in their use. Tell me, what would you do in this situation? Assume no change? That would be highly unlikely.

       BTW...one scenario he didn't have involved a management decision (the Montreal protocol) that he himself would have approved of because of his model results. Does that mean he didn't think it was a good idea, or he didn't believe that such an action would have no effect on GHG forcing? Of course not.   That would be akin to saying that because the model was right the model was wrong.  Scenarios can't be thought of in that way.

32659. Glenn Tamblyn at 07:42 AM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh

       The N Band is the only one relevent. J & K bands are at wavelengths too small to have any meaningful impact. They are used in Infrared Astronomy because they are studying stars. These obviously have surface temperatures much higher than the Earth so their Planck curves are shifted to lower wavelengths and the J&K bands then sit above regions of the planck curve where the intensity of radiation is significant. However at the Earth's temperature the amount of energy being radiated in those bands is utterly negligible. Look at the graphs Tom showed from SOD. 2.5 μm for one of those bads would be a wave number of 4000 - of the right of the graph where the intensity is utterly negligible.

       Where I think you are perhaps tripping yourself up is just thinking about transmittance. What also has to be considered is how much energy is available at each wavelength. J & K bands allow 60-80% transmission; 60-80% of virtually nothing.

       Also, even within the N band window, that still only allows 80% transmission in clear sky conditions. Under cloudy skies, clouds absorb across the entire spectrum and contribute to the GH effect. Clouds are estimated to contribute 25% to the GH effect. When there are clouds present transmission through the N band is essentially zero. Again what then escapes through the N bamd is reradiation from the clouds.

32660. Russ R. at 07:41 AM on 15 November 2014
       More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
       

       JH,

       "Because at the time the scenarios were developed (e.g., the SRES scenarios were developed in 2000), it was thought that past trends would continue, the scenarios used and the resulting model projections assumed in FAR through AR4 all show larger increases than those observed (Figure 1.6)."

       Projections > Observations.  

       Wrong.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You link to the pdf of a report that does not include a title page. What is the title of the report and when was it published? 

32661. KR at 07:28 AM on 15 November 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       TallDave - You appear to have rather completely misunderstood my comment and the graph therein (not putting the graph in this comment, as it's right up there in @22). Concentrations of GHGs are well below what would result from Hansen Scenario A, and in fact below Scenario C, and the concentrations listed in that graph for the scenarios is what results after emissions and after accounting for the carbon cycle in the model. 

       "Emissions (especially of CO2) rose like Scenario A" - False. Look. At. That. Graph. 

       CO₂ has been reasonably close to the Hansen scenarios, in fact to all of them, because there is little difference (at this early date) between A, B, C, and observed CO₂. But there have been far fewer emissions of CFCs, CH₄, NO₂, and hence lower total GHG concentrations remaining than in any of the Hansen scenarios. To a large extent the 1987 Montreal Protocol limiting CFCs is responsible for that difference, rather than cuts in fossil fuels. 

       "Hansen made predictions about things he could not know" Bzzzzt!!! You are attacking something other than the subject of Hansens climate model. Hansen made projections of climate response, not predictions of economic development, demonstrating the modeled climate responding to various GHG changes. The scenarios were presented to map the response space. He wasn't, and isn't, speaking in the business of economics, but rather in the science of climate. If the relationship between observed emissions and climate change match that of his model, then it's skillful. 

       Attacking a climate model because economic development and the ensuing emissions didn't exactly match the economic scenarios posed to map the input/output of those climate models is just absurd. That criteria would only be applicable to economic models, to economists, not climate science. 

       The best test is to run the model against observed emissions and see whether it matches observed temperature response, and [with the more correct CO₂ direct forcing incorporated from Myhre 1998] Hansens model does that quite well. 

32662. TallDave at 06:57 AM on 15 November 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Stephen — Of course emissions are central to his testimony.  Without the assignment of emissions scenarios, A B and C are just random points on a graph, chosen for no particular reason, with no relevance to policy.

       "Hansen could not know that methane would show it's odd pattern over time"

       Exactly my point, thank you.  Hansen made predictions about things he could not know. 

       "You're argument for your fixation on old models doesn't ring true. More sophisticated GCMS produced later have plenty of new data they can be compared against."

       I don't think you quite understand the problem.  Models may produce any arbitrary amount of data, but reality produces one year of results to compare their predictions against per year, and that only after the prediction.  

32663. wili at 06:56 AM on 15 November 2014
       Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
       

       Writing "Republican Leaders" next to "wrong" is getting to be something of a tautology these days.

32664. Stephen Baines at 06:48 AM on 15 November 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Tom C is not saying Hansen did not mention emissions, just that they were not central to Hansen's testimony, and did not figure into his main points which were about whether observed warming had happened and whether it could be linked to GHGs and therefore be tied to humans.

       What matters in any climate model is the GHG forcing, which is a function of concentrations.  Emissions affect that, but indirectly and in a lagged fashion, so the timing of emissions and their makeup affect the realized concentration.  

       Hansen could not know that methane would show it's odd pattern over time, that CFC's production would be curtailed by the Montreal protocol a few years later, and that the Soviet bloc would collapse, along with it's industry.  Current emissions of CO2 in particular could be pretty high, but if the timing of those emissions was backloaded, you will not see the overall forcing.

       You're argument for your fixation on old models doesn't ring true.  More sophisticated GCMS produced later have plenty of new data they can be compared against.  Nobody gauges what you can do with a current computer based on what the Commodore Amigo could do in 1988. That is a crazy idea.

32665. TallDave at 05:44 AM on 15 November 2014
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       

       Tristan/KR — as I pointed out in my original post, you're making the usual mistake of confusing "emissions" for "concentrations" or "forcings."  Again, Hansen made predictions explicitly based on emissons to Congress, see his full remarks in the pdf below.  Indeed, the purpose of the hearing was to persuade Congress to take action on emissions.

       Emissions (especially of CO2) rose like Scenario A.  Don't take my word for it, ask the EPA:

       http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/TrendsGlobalEmissions.png

       Tom: Here is the entire text of Hansen's remarks.  Note this passage:

       "We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is Scenario A, to draconian emissions cuts, Scenario C..."

       http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

       Surely no one seriously argues there were draconian cuts in emissions after 1988.   

       "Which leaves one wondering why purported skeptics spend do much time criticizing obsolete (by many generations) models."

       Obviously because they're the only ones that can be tested on any meaningful time scale.  Contra this site, the ability of a model to hindcast a highly complex phenemonen gives little confidence in its forecast (something painfully well-known in other fields).

32666. ubrew12 at 05:30 AM on 15 November 2014
       Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
       

       Two further points to bolster Dana's case:

       1. China's carbon footprint is only 1/4th America's.

       2. The EU has already pledged a 2030 target of 40% (down from 1990 levels).  Hopefully, all these falling domino's will encourage more commitments.

32667. Satoh at 04:47 AM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       The irony is that you would include a graph that shows 80% transmittence in the N-Band (8 to 13 microns) which is a big fat region smack in the middle of the strongest part of earth's radiation curve, and use it as part of your argument that Trenberth's 10% figure, of blackbody surface radiation making it to space, is correct. I won't link to the article on the N-Band in Wikipedia, I'll let you do it, but if you add that to the J Band and the K Band, I just don't believe it's only 10%. There are more windows in the atmosphere than there are in Notra Dame. If we account for clouds, which cover roughly half the sky, then the figure would be 20%, half blocked by cloud, but that still seems way too low.

32668. wili at 04:08 AM on 15 November 2014
       New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below
       

       Thanks for another great article from JA. Toward the end he says: " I have a paper in press with Dr. Ted Scambos that identifies the potential for rapid sea level rise based on Antarctic melting."

       I, for one, look forward for this update, though not without some dread!

32669. DSL at 04:07 AM on 15 November 2014
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       

       Actually, graafderaaf, you've apparently failed to read the Handbook.  It is not based on the 97% consensus.  The 97% graph is used to illustrate one method (of many noted) of working with the general public.

32670. DSL at 04:01 AM on 15 November 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #46A
       

       GISTemp is out for October: .76C — tied for warmest October on record (2005).  2014 is on track for warmest year on record.  Sept-Oct ENSO (MEI) = .36.  

32671. One Planet Only Forever at 03:34 AM on 15 November 2014
       Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
       

       Predictably the claims by the Republican leadership-of-the-moment have little merit, just potential popular appeal. After all, they are trying to promote activity that has no real merit, just potential short-term popular appeal.

       Those who only care about getting the best possible present benefit for themselves are the real problem. They will constantly fight to try to win what they want any way they they can get away with. A better future is of little interest to them. And fighting to keep others from 'developing to live the way they do because there is not enough opportunity for everyone to live that unsustainable damaging way' is an obsession for them. And in many cases the actions that would develop a sustainable better future for all of humanity are contrary to 'their interests'.

       A lack of interest in the development of a sustainable better future for all clearly has a potential for short-term competetive advantage and potential regional popular support. And the damaging consequences of those attitudes and actions continuing to succeed is becoming clearer. Yet they remain 'popular and profitable'. Their popularity and profitability is what needs to change and that will only happen with the success of decent reasonable leadership examples. Other types of leadership succeeding will be unsustainable and damaging as much as they can get away with.

32672. Russ R. at 02:33 AM on 15 November 2014
       More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
       

       CBDunkerson,

       You're evading the question.

       The SRES Scenarios are "If-Then" statements.   If the world's population and economies play out a certain way, then emissions will be a certain amount.  In your own words:

       "If X then Y. Not, 'the result will be Z'."

       One again, and for the record, I'm saying that the IPCC overestimated methane emissions (for whatever scenario we can test), or residence time, or both.  And they admit that they got the trend wrong.  

       So, as it stands today, methane is turning out to be not as big a climate issue as we were told it would be.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You assert that the IPCC admits "that they got the trend wrong" re methane emissions. Please document with specific source reference or references.

32673. Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh @327, I was going to quote exactly the same secton from wikipedia as Glenn.  To make the point clearer, however, here is the IR atmospheric transmittance from wikipedia:

       

       You will notice that both IR camera frequency bands (3-5 micron and 8-12 microns) have relatively high transmittance.  Indeed, the average transmittance over the 8-12 band is probably better, but atmospheric radiation is very low in the 3-5 micron band making it more suitable for long distance viewing.  The difference between the two bands is that between looking through fog (3-5 micron) and looking through a glowing fog (8-12 microns).

       The irony of your argument is that the chief database of emission frequencies for atmospheric gases (the HiTran database) was generated by the USAF in order to determine which frequencies were suitable for IR cameras (and heat seakers) and which were not.  Having constructed their cameras using information from that database applied to radiative models equivalent to those which show the greenhouse effect (as shown above), you now cite the effectiveness of those cameras as disproof of the database and theories used in constructing them.

32674. bcglrofindel at 02:20 AM on 15 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       Alright, found the proble is with units. The EPA is Pg/CO2 and the IPCC is PG/C, so a conversion factor of about 3.7. Mystery solved.

32675. Glenn Tamblyn at 02:17 AM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh from Wikipedia on the subject of FLIR

       "Infrared light falls into two basic ranges: long-wave and medium-wave. Long-wave infrared (LWIR) cameras, sometimes called "far infrared", operate at 8 to 12 μm, and can see heat sources, such as hot engine parts or human body heat, a few miles away. Longer-distance viewing is made more difficult with LWIR because the infrared light is absorbed, scattered, and refracted by air and by water vapor. ...

       Medium-wave (MWIR) cameras operate in the 3-to-5 μm range. These can see almost as well, since those frequencies are less affected by water-vapor absorption, but generally require a more expensive sensor array, along with cryogenic cooling."

       Contrast this with Tom's just posted graph. 8-12μm is the 'atmospheric window' plus a bit of the H₂O absorption bands on either side. No involvement from CO2. And virtually no backradiation since that only occurs at wavelenths where the GH gases can absorb and thus emit. And 3-5μm is completely off the graph to the right.

       FLIR works precisely because it works around the absorption properties of the GH gases. Your belief that " FLIR operates at all wavelengths that CO2 emits" is incorrect.

       And Back Radiation isn't something to be believed in or not. It is something routinely and directly observed.

32676. bcglrofindel at 02:12 AM on 15 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       @KR in 57,

       sorry, still confused. I was understanding that models were based upon concentrations versus emissions or forcings? Concentrations being derived from net expected emissions, and forcings being derived from concentrations?

32677. bcglrofindel at 02:10 AM on 15 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       MA Rodger,

       Thanks for that. I'm second guessing my reading of the IPCC CO2 emission numbers for scenarios now though. As per your post I compared the FAR to actual as per prior links and concluded as you that absorption was since adjusted. I went to look what that adjustment looked like and instead find that even the AR5 has nonsensically low CO2 emission numbers per Table AII.2.1a. We are looking at 2010 emission numbers of ~8 Petagrams across all scenarios for 2010 and future projections ranging from below zero but in no circumstances exceeding 29 Petagrams. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume the IPCC did look at current numbers before picking the 2010 values and would have noticed if the actual human emissions matched the EPA's aparently observed numbers already exceeding 25-30 Petagrams.

       So my question is, if the EPA numbers are out, were would one find actual historicial fossil fuel emission numbers to reference correctly? Everything I can google comes up like the EPA numbers, but from the IPCC numbers in their 2013 report that simple can't be the same numbers the IPCC is working from.

32678. Stephen Baines at 02:07 AM on 15 November 2014
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       

       "The general public does not trust climate scientists and with good reason because advocating disaster can have great career prospects."

       As a working scientist, this is simply a crazy notion.  If anything, scientists tend to be conservative to avoid seeming "unobjective" to their peers.  And it is to their peers that they must answer.

32679. KR at 02:07 AM on 15 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       bcglrofindel - As Bob points out determining forcings is part of the modeling process, albeit done for FAR with feed-in models such as line-by-line radiative codes and simplified carbon cycle models (See FAR chapter 3 on modeling). The scenarios for FAR and in fact for current IPCC summaries are based on emissions, not forcings. 

       As to the latter part of your comment, I'm not certain what you're asking, although that may just be my (mis)reading. I will point out that CO2 isn't the only driver of climate, and there were significant differences in other influences between the FAR scenarios and actual history such as CFC levels. 

32680. Satoh at 01:54 AM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Glenn, the images I am talking about are generically known as FLIR which means Forward Looking IR. It's an old-fashioned military term for heat seeking and visualizing equipment that goes back many decades. There are many FLIR cameras / sights on many types of military weapons, where an enemy soldier's human form can clearly be seen using only the IR that he radiates. All objects that emit IR are as clear as if a light camera were taking them, and you can identify humans, tanks, hot weapons (and their ammunition) from 20,000 feet elevation. I don't see how this is possible if the atmosphere absorbs and re-emits IR. I believe FLIR operates at all wavelengths that CO2 emits. I believe that CO2 absorbs IR and turns it into kinetic heat. I do not believe in back-radiation in the troposphere, otherwise FLIR would not work at all.

32681. Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 15 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh @322:

       First, the graph I used was just a highlighted region used to show the agreement between model and observation closely.  As Glenn correctly notes, it is one of three graphs in the original paper, two of which is shown by Science of Doom, including this one:

       

        

       Second, Science of Doom also developed his own Line by Line model, and used it to calculate first the upward IR radiation at various altitudes with a clear sky:

       

       And then just the transmitted upward IR radiation from the surface:

       

       The light blue shows the transmission to 22.8 kilometers of altitude, ie, effectively to space.  Except for very small amounts, almost all of it comes from the 750-1350 wave number "atmospheric window", in which around 90% of surface emitted IR radiation transits the atmosphere.  Overall, there will be slightly more than 17% (=40/239) of surface radiation will be transmitted averaged over the Earth in clear sky conditions.  That is because no IR radiation from the surface penetrates clouds.  Taking clouds into account, the total is reduced to approximately 17%.

       It should be noted that SOD's model does not differ on any principles relative to the models that produced the predicted result in Conrath et al (1970), nor those that produce so good a match to observations as shown in the scatterplot of 134,862 model/observation comparisons by Dessler et al (2008).  Those models of prove accuracy, therefore, will produce equivalent results if atmospheric emission is eliminated from them as well.

       Your mistake is to assume that the IR radiation to space consists of the surface emission minus atmospheric absorption.  It is, however, overwhelmingly the result of atmospheric emission, with nearly all (90%) of surface emission being absorbed in the atmosphere.

       IR satellites are able to produce usefull images because their IR sensors are tuned to the atmospheric window where only about 10% of surface emission is absorbed.  Indeed, they will be tuned to the precise frequencies in which absorption is at a minimum.  Even so, they do not see through clouds and have a degraded performance relative to optical cameras.  

32682. PhilippeChantreau at 00:33 AM on 15 November 2014
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       

       Graafderaaf, a common pseudo-dkeptic argument is that there is disagreement among scientists on the subject. Closer examination reveals that there is no significant disagreement, in fact less so than many other scientific subjects.

       Can you explain how exactly advocating disaster helps with carreer propects? I recall Sallie Baliunas predicting "trillions" of dollars of losses and economic mayhem as a result of the CFC ban to protect the ozone layer, how has that helped her carreer?

32683. Dikran Marsupial at 00:09 AM on 15 November 2014
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       

       graafderaaf not that old canard again.  Nobody is using the existence of a consensus as a scientific argument for the existence of anthropogenic climate change.  If you look around the myths discussed here, you will find that we base our arguments on peer-reviewed scientific articles.  If you disagree with any of them, then I would encourage you to post a comment on a relevant topic explaining your scientific objections.

       The existence of a consensus ought to be a good way of communicating expert opinion on more or less any scientific topic, as it shows you what the mainstream scientific position actually is.   Ignoring the opinion of qualified people is hubris and folly of the highest order.

       As to career prospects, I think you ought to do some research to find out how much academics get paid, it isn't actually all that much when you think how long they spent earning the qualifications and compared to how much management in industry earns for similar levels of responsibility, or qualifications (e.g. actuarial salaries).

       It is ironic that you complain about faulty reasoning and then procede to use an ad-hominem! ;o)

32684. CBDunkerson at 23:03 PM on 14 November 2014
       More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
       

       Russ, I repeat the quotation from the IPCC report;

       "Because at the time the scenarios were developed (e.g., the SRES
       scenarios were developed in 2000), it was thought that past trends
       would continue, the scenarios used and the resulting model projections
       assumed in FAR through AR4 all show larger increases than those
       observed (Figure 1.6)."

       So, none of them aligns with methane emissions since 1990. Of course, you ask which of those scenarios best aligns with other factors... but that is obviously irrelevant to methane levels.

       My best guess is that you are trying to 'prove' that the trend in methane emissions relative to economic development decreased for several years. However, as the IPCC report actually says that, I'm not sure what you think you have 'uncovered'.

32685. Glenn Tamblyn at 21:54 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh

       "The argument given here only addresses "d" and ignores "a-c" and "e". In fact, the vast majority of radiation to space from earth is from "a"

       Not true.

       "a. blackbody radiation from the surface which radiates directly into space through the many windows in the spectrum where the atmosphere is transparent to IR."

       There aren't many windows. There is a recognised region around 10-11.5 microns labelled the Atmospheric Window where tranmission through the atmosphere is nearly total. Across the rest of the spectrum absorption is nearly total. What we are seeing in graphs like what Tom has shown is predominantly not transmission. It is reradiation.

32686. graafderaaf at 21:42 PM on 14 November 2014
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       

       The example used in this book is terrible!

       If you want to convince the world about climate change being caused by humans you don't make the argument based on that 97 out of a 100 climate scientist agree with that statement!

       The general public does not trust climate scientists and with good reason because advocating disaster can have great career prospects.

       You have to use real arguments.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Please read the comments policy on this site. If you make sweeping statements like above, then please provide support for your argument. Further wild rhetoric like this will be deleted.

32687. Glenn Tamblyn at 21:41 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh

       "The irradiance chart, on the other hand, clearly shows that much of the spectrum has high transmission of IR through the atmosphere, with the exception of a big CO2 band from 13 to 18 microns"

       This is a common misunderstanding. Take the region on the left of Tom's second graph, to the left of wavenumber 600. That is a region dominated by water vapour absorption/emission. And not that the intensity corresponds to a Planck curve with a temperature below 280 K. I.e, well above the surface.

       What you are seeing there is not IR that has been transmitted through the atmosphere. Water vapour absorbs virtually all the IR leaving the surface. The transmittance is negligible. What is being measured there is IR radiated from higher in the atmosphere. It is not transmitted through it.

       
       Siimilarly the CO2 region represents again near total absorption the reradiation at higher altitudes. Much higher than the altitude the signals from the water band are coming from so much colder. So the intensity is so much lower. Look at the spike in the center of the CO2 'notch'. That corresponds to an altitude so high that it is in the upper stratosphere where temperatures are actually warmer. The detailed shape of the CO2 'notch' is a direct reflection of the verticl temperature profile of the atmosphere.

       Tom's 'graph' is actually taken from an observations based paper from 1970. It is one of three such graphs provided by that paper and covers a larger frequency range, but still ultimately limited by the operating range of the instrument on the Nimbus 3 satellite.

       Your earlier comment "That would only be true for blackbody Planck radiatiors. CO2 is a gas and does not emit blackbody radiation. "is only partly correct. A gas does not radiate as a black (or even grey) body in that it does not radiate a continuous spectrum with a Planck Function shape. It only radiates over a narrower range of discrete frequencies. However, at those frequencies the intensity of the radiation emitted by the gas does match the strength of a black body at that frequency.

       Yo are making a claim that the ability to discern continents in IR suggests relatively high transmission. However you haven't backed up that assertion.

       1. What part of the IR spectrum is being used in these observtions?
       2. What sort of signal processing is being done to the data to allow discrimination of the continents? Do you know that it is being done with raw data?
       3. Even if there is no signal processing, is the fact that a portion of the signal does transit all the way to space, even if only 10%, provide sufficient discrimination to allow boundaries to be detected.
       4. Unless the sea and closely adjacent land are at significantly different temperatures, how different will they appear on a raw R plot and thus how visible would any boundary be?
       5. When we see boundaries in visible light for example we are seeing differneces of intensity, colour, polarisation etc. that form a composite means of detecting boundaries. Is there the same discrimintion available in IR data.
       6. Do the images of continents men what you thing they mean? I don't know that answer, I am just posing the question.

       Trenberth's 'cartoon calculations' aren't his. That paper amalgamates measurements from many different sources to produce that composit picture.

       
       And Tom's pont about your misunderstanding Wien's Displacement Law is spot on. Look at his figure 2. Pick any wavelength and compare the magnitude of the different Planck curves shown. Where do any of them show a higher intensity for a lower temperature at any single wavelength? A cooler Planck curve always lies below a warmer one, at all wavelengths.

32688. MA Rodger at 20:15 PM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       bcgirofindel @53.

       Adding to other comments here, as you show, recourse to FAR WG3 does easily yield emissions (as per tables 2.8) which for CO2 in all scenarios, project values lower than outcomes so far. Yet, to convert emissions into forcings you require to establish atmospheric concentrations which in FAR for CO2 can be gleaned from WG3 Figure 2.2. My reading of it suggests the 400ppm is passed by Scenario B in 2015, an event that now looks certain to occur.
       The different outcome between the emissions comparison and concentrations comparison tells us that 25 years ago FAR were a bit out calculating CO2 absorption rates.

32689. Tristan at 19:47 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Every time someone throws issues a challenge to Mr Curtis, I want to get pretzels, his science-powered takedowns are exquisite.

32690. Satoh at 18:36 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Your first two graphs disagree with each other. The first graph says only 40 W/m2 out of 396 are emitted directly through atmospheric spectral windows, which is only 10%. The irradiance chart, on the other hand, clearly shows that much of the spectrum has high transmission of IR through the atmosphere, with the exception of a big CO2 band from 13 to 18 microns. Your radiance chart is incomplete by the way, because it only goes from 10 microns to 25, when the earth radiates from 7 to 100 microns. The complete chart spectrum, from 7 to 100, shows very little absorption by the atmosphere from 7 to 13 microns, and again very little absorption from 18 to 100, which is a big enough part of the spectrum for me to know that Trenberth's figure of 10% is extremely low. I don't believe it. The large amount of radiance to space from earth surface, through windows, is evidenced by the fact that IR images of earth taken from satellites show surface features such as continents and islands, lakes, etc, which would not be visible if 90% of the IR is absorbed by and re-emitted by the atmosphere. A 90% atmospheric interference of IR would mean the atmosphere is basically transleucent to IR, and IR cameras in satellites would not show continents, etc, but would show nothing but a featureless haze. I don't buy Trenberth's cartoon calculations at all.

32691. Tom Curtis at 16:18 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Satoh @329:

       1)  The term "saturated greenhouse effect" has a long history, and is well understood.  "Extinction" refers to the point at which no radiation from the original source remains - which is a different concept.  The greenhouse effect is claimed to be saturated by the misinformed due to the fact that radiation from the Earth's surface is extinguished in the 15 micron band at very low levels (which is a non-sequitur on a variety of grounds).

       Confusing the two terms only confuses the issue, leading the gullible to believe that the greenhouse effect cannot become stronger with increased CO2 concentration (ie, it is saturated) because IR radiation from the Earth's surface at 15 micron is in fact extinguished low in the atmosphere.  The two are not the same thing.

       2)  I do not believe the article leaves that impression.  (Which, article by the way?  I assume you mean the basic article.)  However, to the extent that it does, it is only because it is discussing the claim that the greenhouse effect is saturated because IR radiation from the surface at 15 microns does not escape to space.  Because that is the argument which is being responded to, of course attention is focussed on CO2.

       Working through the list, you claim that "In fact, the vast majority of radiation to space from earth is from "a"", which is simply false.  Here is the partition of energy flows by Kiehle and Trenberth, 2009:

       

       As you will notice, only 40 W/m^2 out of 249 W/m^2 of the IR radiation to space comes directly from the planets surface.  A further 30 W/m^2 comes from cloud tops.  Of the remaining 179 W/m^2, all of it comes from the atmosphere, but most of it will come from water vapour.  However, as the greenhouse effect works by replacing a high IR flux from the surface with a lower IR flux from the atmosphere at certain wavelengths, the lower the IR contribution from a given gas, all else being equal, the stronger the greenhouse effect caused by that gas.   The argument that CO2 is of relatively little importance because it contributes relatively little to the total IR flux has the relationship exactly reversed, and shows a lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect.

       3) (@320), first and most generally, you are in complete disagreement with  line by line radiation models.  They assume atmospheric gases are grey bodies and calculate emissions and absorptions spectral line by spectral line, and produce results, when compared to observations like this:

       

       And like this:

       

       If you will excuse me, I will accept such a well confirmed theory as that presented by LBL models over the bad theory of "random internet guy".

       More specifically, you are using Wein's displacement law incorrectly.  It points out the wavelength (or frequency) of the peak radiation for a given temperature of a black body.  It does not indicate the temperature of peak emission for a given wavelength (or frequency).  In fact, for black bodies at any given wavelength, the emission at that wavelength will be greater at higher temperatures in all cases:

       

       (Wikipedia)

       Because CO2 molecules in the atmosphere gain the energy that they emit by molecular collision, the intensity of radiation at the frequencies in which it radiates follow the black body laws.  Therefore decreased temperature will decrease emission from CO2 at 15 microns even though it approaches the temperature at which 15 microns is the wavelength of peak emission for a black body.  Indeed, it will continue to do so until molecular collissions occur at a frequency much less than the frequency of reemission of absorbed radiation, or until the temperature is much less than 200 K (so that thermal emission can be neglected).

32692. Satoh at 13:34 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Another glaring error in the argument given here: it treats the radiation at the top of the atmosphere, I suppose from CO2, as if it were blackbody radiation. I say this because the argument specifically states that if the elevation of radiation is higher, the temperature becomes colder, so the amount of radiation is less. That would only be true for blackbody Planck radiatiors. CO2 is a gas and does not emit blackbody radiation. It emits quantum specific radiation, namely 15 microns, which according to Wiens law corresponds with around 200K. We all know, 200 K is very cold. If the elevation of this emitting layer of CO2 climbs higher, and therefore becomes colder, it makes the temperature closer to 200K and therefore the emission would be STRONGER, not weaker. The giant error in the argument is assuming that as the layer grows colder, it will emit less, when the opposite is true....as it gets closer to 200K the emission increases because 200K is the quantum specific temperature of maximum emission.

32693. Satoh at 13:04 PM on 14 November 2014
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       I've found some errors in the original argument which I would like to address. I've not read all 318 posts, so it's possible that somebody has already corrected them.

       1. The correct term is extinction, not saturation. Nothing is being saturated, the 15 micron IR band radiates from earth's surface and is absorbed to extinction by CO2 in the lowest level of the atmosphere (the elevation of extinction is around 500 feet).

       2. The argument given here gives the false impression that the only IR that radiates into space comes from CO2 radiating at 15 microns from the top of the atmosphere. Let us refresh our memories on how earth loses heat:

       a. blackbody radiation from the surface which radiates directly into space through the many windows in the spectrum where the atmosphere is transparent to IR.

       b. blackbody radiation from cloud tops in the troposphere

       c. quantum radiation from H2O molecules in the troposphere, at many different wavelengths

       d. quantum radiation from CO2 in the stratosphere, at 15 microns

       e. quantum radiation from O3 in the thermosphere, at 9.6 microns

       The argument given here only addresses "d" and ignores "a-c" and "e". In fact, the vast majority of radiation to space from earth is from "a"

32694. Bob Loblaw at 11:33 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       bcglrofindel: "the relationship between emissions forcings and climate change?"

       This isn't quite right [the strikeout of emissions and replacement with forcings].

       GCM's are not given forcing [radiation changes], they are given CO2 concentrations as a function of time. The forcing is then calculated within the model, based on the principles of radiation transfer and the known radiative properties of CO2.

       Although the top-of-atmosphere forcing (change in IR radiation) is a key diagnostic element when it comes to climate response, the change in CO2 concentration has an effect throughout the atmosphere. Thus, there are many "forcings", if one thinks of "forcings" as changes in radiation. Even at the top of the atmosphere, the effect will depend on latitude and longitude - which is why climatologists like to run 3d models.

       "Emissions" isn't exactly right, either, because a typical GCM does not accept an input of CO2 at the rate given from anthropogenic output, and then move the CO2 around and aborb some back into the oceans and biosphere. That is the role of carbon cycle models. A carbon cycle model will determine a trajectory of atmospheric CO2 based on emissions scenarios, and that atmospheric CO2 concentration will be used as input to a GCM.

       ...but "emissions" is a lot closer to correct than "forcings".

32695. scaddenp at 09:22 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       bcglrofindel - "Putting the two together too hard though also leads to an easy target for complaint of making claims that can not be disproven."

       Come on. If temperatures didnt rise then AGW is instantly disproved.

       Models are wrong - any modeller will tell you that. The question to ask about models is do they have skill? (ie do they outperform a naive method). On this they certainly do. It's a pain we can't tie down climate sensitivity better than we do but that is the real world.

       But it is a mistake to think AGW hypothesis hangs on model projections. The science makes plenty of other claims that be tested directly (eg LW intensity and spectra both at surface and outgoing, pattern of warming, changes to humidity,  etc)

32696. bcglrofindel at 07:53 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       Thanks again KR.

       If I can risk being wrong again, I take it you meant that 'prediction' from the GCMs is the relationship between emissions forcings and climate change?  Adjusting the FAR forcings for lower observed values makes for the good corrections you provided. The FAR emissions values though radically underestimated actuality in Fig 2.7. Even for 2100 the projections for all scenarios was under 30 Petagrams. For 2013 they are across the board under 10 Petagrams. Observed CO2 emissions though for 2013 are over 35 Petagrams. If we were to go based off of CO2 emissions than the FAR scenarios were universally optimistic, and by that metric aught to have underestimated forcings and warming.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Corrected 40 Petegrams figure.

32697. KR at 07:37 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       bcglrofindel - CO2 forcings are on the low side of the FAR projections, CFCs are also lower, and see my previous comment on the updated effective CO2 forcings. 

       Again - the only 'prediction' from the GCMs is the relationship between emissions and climate change, the only appropriate test against observations is to take those models and run them with actual forcings. Old economic projections are useful tools for exploring the envelope of the GHG/temperature relationship, and that relationship can be tested, can be disproven if wrong, even if the emission scenarios are nowhere near actual emissions. 

       That relationship quite frankly passes testing. 

       

       [Source]

       Yes, folks can complain about almost anything. But that doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on. 

32698. bcglrofindel at 06:51 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       @MA Rodgers,

       Thanks for that and right you are. By all measures effective forcing is currently under all scenarios assessed in the FAR. I had stated CO2 and CO2 equivalent concentrations where within the FAR estimates in Fig 2.1. I dunno if anyone can clarify me as an aside where the FAR CO2 concentration scenarios are within current measurements while effective forcing for CO2 is not? Is it climate sensitivity values used? It'd thought it had been a translation directly based on radiation obsorption which was already well known for the FAR?

       @KR

       The point on not overly relying on science from nearly 3 decades ago is obvious and important. The point on not judging modelling of processes that take decades on short term trends is obvious and important. Putting the two together too hard though also leads to an easy target for complaint of making claims that can not be disproven.

32699. scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       ^{"Yes, there are plenty of caveats to be included, but simple is better."}

       Is it? Present that graph without the cavaets to "Joe Blow public", and (especially if he is a republican apparently) he will jump to conclusion that models can't be trusted that climate sensitivity is overestimated. These would be invalid conclusions. You dont jump to the same conclusion for the graph KR showed which compares FAR with actual forcings.

32700. KR at 05:35 AM on 14 November 2014
       IPCC overestimate temperature rise
       

       bcglrofindel - Keep in mind that the FAR results from 1990 are just that, 25yr. old results, that the state of the art and available data has only improved since then, and that current work gives more detailed results that earlier works are generally consistent with. 

       As with the early 'hockey-stick' work by Mann et al, nobody claims perfection in early work, nor even in current science. But the work since those seminal papers and early reports has only confirmed the general conclusions regarding AGW, and small decades old issues visible only from the perspective of current science don't invalidate the entire field. 

       In short, we're still seeing warming, it's consistent with about 3C/CO₂ doubling +/-, the models are reasonably accurate for longer term trends (just not short term unpredictable variability that they've never been claimed to deal with), and there's really neither evidence nor reason to think that those basic facts will change. No matter how much 'skeptics' re-examine old papers and reports with ever smaller nit-picking. 

Prev  646  647  648  649  650  651  652  653  654  655  656  657  658  659  660  661  Next