Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 Next
Comments 41851 to 41900:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:20 AM on 4 October 2013Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh
BillEverett The link http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u works for me. Hopefully the link in the article will be fixed shortly.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:16 AM on 4 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
undecided The comment in Pierrehumbert's book refers to clouds (which do not contribute to the greenhouse effect), not water vapor (which does), and so does not in any way support your earlier comments regarding H2O versus CO2.
Pierrehumbert, like many climatologists, is perfectly happy to talk about the limitations of the models, however he are still willing to use them. The fact that this is the case should give you pause for thought, that just perhaps you are blowing the limitations out of all proportion, and that perhaps you need to actually read the books and papers that explain how the models work, rather than just read the opening remarks until you find a comment that you can use to support your position.
-
Composer99 at 03:46 AM on 4 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
As a follow-up to my comment #9, I should like to add the following summary:
The claims of denialists notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is, like any well-validated science, climatology is backed up by the three-fold combination of:
(1) Theory - the known physics of radiative transfer, bulk heat transfer in the atmosphere & oceans, the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules, etc. etc. etc.;
(2) Experiment - e.g. Tyndall's work in the 19th century, modern climate modelling, etc.; and
(3) Observations - e.g. satellite era research showing the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance, ARGO floats finding immense increases in ocean heat content, global cryosphere melt, and so on (and on and on...)
I can assure you, Undecided, and any other readers, that the findings of climatology cannot be so easily tossed aside by casual references to bad financial modelling in the last decade: any attempt to overturn it has to come to grips with the theory, experiment, and observations.
-
Composer99 at 03:36 AM on 4 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
Undecided Molecular Biologist:
There's nothing for it but to say that you appear to be operating with an extraordinary misconception of the underpinnings of climate science. Just imagine some random person coming along and spouting off completely off-base stuff about molecular biology. That is what your comment #8 looks like with respect to climatology.
Climate models are emphatically not the underpinning of climate science. If anything, they're latecomers to the game. Climate science begins with the paleoclimatic studies of ice ages and the experiments of Tyndall in the 19th century, not with the hi-falutin' models discussed in IPCC reports.
Our present understanding of climate and of greenhouse gases follows, of necessity, from the physical properties of greenhouse gas molecules themselves and their IR-radiative behaviour. As far as I am aware, these properties were more or less completely determined in the 1950s and 60s.
The understanding that CO2 is a critical forcing while H2O is a feedback (that is, H2O does not force climate changes, it can only amplify them) also follows of necessity from the same physical properties.
What is more, we have access to empirical data from paleoclimate research and recent records-keeping, which we can use to validate modelling. As far as I am aware the bulk of empirical data strongly supports the mainstream understanding of climate.
I have nothing to say about your attempt to draw an analogy between climate modelling and a particular set of financial modelling (if indeed you have characterized the latter accurately) or your final remarks, which IMO amount to issue-trolling, however well meant they may be.
-
Undecided Molecular Biologist at 02:38 AM on 4 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
You both refer to mathematical "proof" that CO2 is indeed a "very active" substance via models. This probably risks needing to move the subject to another thread, but to continue the point -
Pierrehumberts book states very aggressively in his opening remarks, just one (of potentially thousands) of flaws in climate model calculations. Namely that water, or indeed clouds, pose a very severe challenge to the understanding of climate. One calculation error on either side of the effect clouds have upon radiative forcing, will destroy a model.
When the number of interacting variables in a model reaches numbers that clearly climate science does, they have to be wrong, they will be wrong. Pure common sense says this. Indeed, you can back-model climate to check if you are right, but that is including the known variables. Bankers back-modelled AAA rated financial products 5 years ago. There was overwhelming consensus that they were right in their own (greedy-world) of peer reviewing each other’s work. Trillions were invested "risk-free".
To model the risk profile of a AAA rated asset backed collection of securities is a piece of cake compared to trying to model climate science. And what happened?
They were wrong. They missed a simple variable and the model broke. Trillions lost and global recession we are still feeling the effects of. Big mistake by an overwhelming consensus at the time and by (simple by comparison) models being wrong.
I worry that the climate movement has made a grave mistake in backing CO2 as the driver of climate change....
If it is proven to be a mistake, public will lose confidence and trust in the environmental movement and I fear even more important issues such as habitat loss, population growth, antibiotic use and sustainable practices will get effected.
This is my big fearModerator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repititon -- both of which are prohibted by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
[Rob P] Allcaps removed. See comments policy.
-
BillEverett at 02:34 AM on 4 October 2013Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh
The link in "Thankfully Gavin Cawley has now managed to publish a response, which should settle the matter (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u)" doesn't work.
-
kanspaugh at 00:02 AM on 4 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
Agree with the comment that repetition is important to the rhetoric of denialism. Recalls the strategy that Dick Cheney & Co. used to attempt to justify the US invasion of Iraq: "Lie; Retreat; Repeat. Lie; Retreat; Repeat." The difference is that global warming denialists don't much bother with the "retreat" part. They just lie and repeat the lie. They are that much more shameless.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:55 PM on 3 October 2013Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh
BojanD/XRAY1061 The fact that CO2 levels have been increasing at a time anthropogenic emissions have been rising doesn't disprove Essenhigh's hypothesis, but the fact that they have been rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions does (as Tom points out).
The error usually made by these types of argument is to compare the gross volume of anthropogenic and natural fluxes into the atmosphere without considering the fluxes out of the atmosphere as well. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is caused by the difference between total emissions and total uptake. Anthropogenic emissions are small compared to natural emissions, but natural uptake is bigger still, and it is the difference between natural emissions and natural uptake that determines the natural comtribution of CO2 to the atmosphere (and it is negative!).
FWIW Essenhigh's paper says very little about what is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2, just that it can't be anthropogenic because the residence time is short. My paper explains why this is incorrect, residence time is short (4-5 years), but the conclusion does not follow.
Anyone can make a mistake, however the NIPCC report cites Essenhigh's paper and uses similar arguments, that is a far more egregious error as the problems with Essenhigh's paper had already been widely discussed in climate blogs and in the journal itself. It would ony take a google scholar search of the papers that cite Essenhigh's to have discovered that, which is basic scholarship.
-
BojanD at 23:46 PM on 3 October 2013Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh
Therefore the mere fact of the increase does not prove that the increase was anthropogenic.
I think that's not what XRAY1961 had in mind. I think he meant that since Essenhigh implies (or openly states?) that anthropogenic contribution is negligible, then the source of rising CO2 concentrations should be huge and therefore not difficult to isolate. So I wouldn't go with 'completely disproves', but it gives it a lot of problems.
It's astonishing that such faulty papers could get published. Beyond belief, really. I guess a college student could make such a mistake, but this ... -
DSL at 23:36 PM on 3 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
UMB, what sort of "If by Whiskey" argument is that? The relative strengths of the various greenhouse gases have been directly measured (example) from surface. You know that, of course, and so I'm wondering why you're engaged in semantics when you could be going through the math. If you want to talk about tiny changes, why not point out that if we use the full Kelvin scale up to the max GMST for the last 550 million years, a change of -3% results in a massive ice age. A change of less than 0.2% resulted in the LIA.
You might also check out this series of articles (the author welcomes feedback from those able to do the math).
"reflector"?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:01 PM on 3 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
Undecided Molecular Biologist The basic mathematics of the enhanced greenhouse effect was worked out by Gilbert Plass back in the 50s, and the calculations were based on the "small" amount of the IR spectrum that CO2 actually absorbs that you mention. The reason this can have a great effect is that the sun provides a very large amount of energy into the climate system, so (loosely speaking) you only need a small proportional change in the amount that escapes can have a big effect on surface temperatures.
I suggest you get a copy of Pierrehumbert's book "Principles of Planetary Climate", and follow the maths, and you will find out how the greenhouse effect actually works and you will understand how important these small absorbtion bands are.
-
Undecided Molecular Biologist at 21:11 PM on 3 October 2013CO2 is just a trace gas
"Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects"
Yes. But only if that substance is "very active".
IS CO2 indeed "very active"?
it only reflects IR "black body" radiation. therefore is it not very active in terms of effecting heat, which spans a much longer band of wavelength than just bloack body IR.
Even within the IR black-body band, CO2 only effects three tiny absorbtion bands that account for 8% of the "black body" wavelenths.
Correct?
If this is correct, CO2 is 100% not "a very active substance".
Rather a better description is that it is a "very weak" reflector of heat.
Correct?
Water is a far more powerful green house gas both because of the level of heat it is able to reflect, but also the massive concentration of H2O in the atmosphere.
Correct?
back to CO2 - when you combine the fact that it seems to be a very weak reflector of the overall heat spectrum, combined with the fact it is present by concentration 0.03% of air, surwely the climate change movement might have made a massive mistake in placing CO2 as the central cause of global warming?
....when you heat water, it releases gasses including CO2, hence could CO2 in past warmings be an effect rather than a cuase?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] Allcaps removed. Further transgressions will result in comment deletion.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:04 PM on 3 October 2013Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh
XRAY1961 @1, there have, in the past, been increases in CO2 concentration as large, and even larger than that (though probably not as rapidly). Therefore the mere fact of the increase does not prove that the increase was anthropogenic. Further, it is logically possible that the timing was mere coincidence - so while that timing is highly suggestive of the cause, it does not establish it to the standard scientists would normally accept. Fortunately, there are at least nine other lines of evidence that, together, establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the rise in CO2 concentration is anthropogenic.
Of these, one of the most important, and the one that Gavin Cawley most favours, is the mass balance argument. We know that the CO2 increase was anthropogenic, because each year, the total increase in CO2 is less than we put into the atmosphere. Therefore nature is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere each year, and consequently cannot have caused the rise in CO2 concentration.
-
Trevor_S at 20:55 PM on 3 October 2013Secretary of State Kerry and Senator Boxer Remark on the IPCC Report
William at @12
"And yet, with a stroke of the pen, the politicians could have a profound effect on the problem"
As could voters with a check of the correct ballot box or we emitters by not flying, travelling so much and by installing renewables.. and yet ??
Professor Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Climate Centre) speaks to the latter here
-
MarkR at 19:55 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Sereniac #81
I think that's the most interesting question IMO. Based on the evidence we've got so far, the only sensible suggestion for the lower predictions of warming favoured by the 'skeptics' is that we get some change in ocean circulation that keeps trying to hide the heat.
We have some evidence we can call on.
Firstly, models generally predict more El Ninos with warming, so we don't know about a physical mechanism to cause a mostly La Nina state.
Secondly, back in the warmth of the Pliocene, it seems that there were permanent El Ninos (Ravelo et al., 2006), the opposite of what you'd need.
Perhaps other changes in ocean circulation outside El Nino could be a negative feedback, but aside from drastic changes like the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which triggered the Gulf Stream, or the draining of Lake Agassiz which cut it off for a bit, there isn't evidence because once again: models don't give a physical reason for it to happen, and palaeoclimate evidence suggests that the climate sensitivity (warming in response to heating, such as by CO2) is within the IPCC range (Rohling et al., 2012).
Perhaps the palaeoclimate studies caught some of the slow positive feedbacks like Arctic methane release and therefore are hiding shorter term negative feedbacks like changes in circulation but this seems a stretch given the agreement between sensitivity during different epochs when the longer term feedbacks should be different because the climate setup was different.
Even if we get permanent La Ninas, is that enough to stop warming forever? I'm not sure of any studies of this, but using the top graph from Tom @79 we might just end up on the La Nina trend line. So we'd have a one-time drop of 0.1-0.3 C which would 'hide' a decade or two of warming, then we'd be back on the same warming trend.
-
scaddenp at 19:21 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
How AGW will affect ENSO is unknown, with theories for both more La Nina and more El Nino. It would take decades to test any theory. However, if you look at the John Neilson-gammon graph, you will slope of warming curve for La Nina years pretty much parallel to main trend. If there was no more El Nino say, then you would show a flat trend (when drawing from a previous El Nino to current La Nina) for a little while, then warming trend would continue as before. Delaying climate action due to betting on no more El Ninos would seem a bad strategy. The current run of La Nina-neutral doesnt look much out of historical normal if you look at the long term values of the index.
-
shoyemore at 18:31 PM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
The BBC are clearly violating the letter and spirit of the report by Professor Steve Jones a couple of year ago which explicitly warned against a specious "equal time" for minority views in science. Jones has publicly pointed this out, and he is not the only one.
According to John Ashton, formerly the top climate-change official at the Foreign Office, the BBC's coverage of last week's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was "a betrayal of the editorial professionalism on which the BBC's reputation has been built over generations".... He questions why a senior corporation figure had long meetings about climate change with Nigel Lawson and Peter Lilley, both prominent UK sceptics. His criticism was echoed by other green campaigners, and academics
I honestly think this is the sort of thing that happens under a Conservative government - Lawson as an old Tory from the Thatcher days has access to levers of power he would not have otherwise under another party. That comes out in some of the denier talking points emanating from government ministers. If it was not for the presence of the British Liberals in the Coalition, Cameron's government (which he boasted would be "the greenest ever") would be tending towards that of Abbott or Harper.
While left-leaning governments may be hypocritical and tend to "greenwashing", at least they come with less fossil-fuel corporate baggage.
I am not British, btw, and am centrist by nature and choice, but I will probably never vote for a government of the right ever again - not when you look at Canada & Australia. It is a relief that in Germany the SPD or the Greens may be in government with the CDs.
-
sereniac at 15:23 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
One more question came to mind.
If the ENSO is a kind of chaotic-emergent phenomenon that - as Tom clearly showed-
looks like the basis of the "hiatus", is there any possibility that the frequency of
ENSO could increase as part of a large scale negative feedback loop to inhibit
the long term trend?
In other words, if the climate has large scale regulatory properties, of which ENSO
looks be one and it is inherently unpredictable, then could it (or other processes)
kick in to dampen the warming trend at some point.
Again, genuinely curious.
cheerss
-
Orcasarah at 14:28 PM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
It's really simple. Lawson is in influenced strongly by those who pay him to be a public figure. Follow the money and you will find the fossil fuel industry is most likely paying his way. He has little importance in the great scheme if things.
-
sereniac at 13:52 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Tom
I think that is very important information.
Obviously it's out there but enhancing its availability/accessibility would be welcomed.
The deeper science is very difficult to grasp but if there is a logic and a data
exercise to support it then it makes a great deal of difference. Especially when it
addresses an emerging critique of AGW.
cheers
-
Tom Curtis at 13:42 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
sereniac @70, I mentioned three methods that show the "hiatus" is almost completely the result of ENSO fluctuations.
The first was first implemented by John Nielsen-Gammon. He took the simple approahc of removing most of the ENSO influence by grouping years by ENSO status, then seperately taking the trend for each group:
This approach has the advantage of being intuitively obvious. If the trends for El Nino years, neutral years and La Nina years are all the same, and there is no hiatus in each category seperately, then any apparent hiatus in the full record is a product of the increased frequency of cool ENSO states (ie, La Ninas) rather than a change in the underlying trend.
The second approach was taken by Foster and Rahmstorf, who identified the ENSO, volcanic, and solar signals in the temperature record, and removed them. The result is a good approximation of what the temperature record would show without those natural variations:
The third, and most interesting, approach is that by Kosaka and Xie (also at SkS, paper linked by scaddenp @76). They ran a climate model, but constrained the tropical pacific ocean to follow historical temperature patterns, thereby forcing the model to have the actual ENSO history. Outside of the tropical Pacific, the model determined temperatures in the normal way, only with the historical ENSO influence from the constrained temperatures in the Pacific. The result was a very close match to the observed temperature record:
This approach is a little more complicated than the others, but more theoretically interesting. However, it does demonstrate very directly that (a) current model with historical ENSO patterns and forcings predicts the observed temperature record, "hiatus" and all.
These three approaches together mean that it is all over bar the shouting as to the dominant cause of the hiatus, IMO. Scientists, being scientists, continue to explore the issue because, first, there may also be other subsidiary causes, and second, it is worthwhile spending effort trying to knock down obvious explanations (if for no other reason than that is how reputations are made).
-
sereniac at 13:23 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Thanks grindupbaker. Video is my favourite educational media....
I think I got a better handle on the issues but I believe it will be a hard sell to
government if the post 1998 "trend" continues for say 5 more years.
I think it is very difficult to explain to nonstatisticians that a system has components
like ENSO which simply "happen" and are unpredictable but the overall system can still be projected into the future within limits that are useful for policy.
Quantum mechanics has somewhat similar underlying principles. It is inherently statistical although no given quantum is predictable. The difference is that quantum
tunneling can be shown in the average large screen TV these days.
thanks for your explanatory efforts.
All the best
-
grindupBaker at 13:04 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
@sereniac #73 There are numerous lectures on internet video if you are interested such as:
---science only---
David Randall: The Role of Clouds and Water Vapor in Climate Change - Simon Fraser University Kevin Trenberth: The Role of the Oceans in Climate - Simon Fraser University Sarah Gille : Long-term Temperature Change in the Southern Ocean - Perspectives - University of California Television climate modelling lectures by Prof Inez Fung (she has several, they all hurt my brain) Prof Inez Fung: Anatomy of a Climate Model: How Robust are Climate Projections? Professor Ted Shepherd: Understanding uncertainty in climate models
-- science & activism --
The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change - Richard Somerville Berkeley University: Dan Miller Extreme Climate Change Catastrophic Climate Change & Runaway Global Warming - David Wasdell
David Wasdell: various
Richard Muller: various
-
scaddenp at 12:55 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
http://skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html will help fill in the ENSO influence.
You cant exactly "add" ENSO the models. ENSO-like behaviour emerges from models but it is unpredictable as is the real thing. This is primary reason why models have no skill at decadal-level projection and dont pretend to do so.
Kosaka and Xie 2013 explore what happens when you impose the actual ENSO on the climate model outputs.
-
grindupBaker at 12:40 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Me #66 I made a mistake with "how many volcanoes and nuclear weapons exchanges will occur" because these would only reduce temperature noticeably at the date projected by the models if they occurred with a couple of years or so prior. Otherwise, the aerosols would have grounded and surface temperatures would have lowered with no reduction in insolation or greenhouse effect so the following temperature rise would be rapid back to the interim unbalanced-ocean balance point. Would be some slight residual reduction in the warming rate because oceans would have taken less heat than projected by the models due to a couple of years or so of cooling or reduced warming, so they would do the surface hiatus thing for a while. There must be numerous other unpredictable human choices and ad hoc natural events that might or might not happen that make "prediction" an impossibility.
-
sereniac at 12:35 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Sorry the gravity analogy was very poor.
More like "At what point do we stop searching for gravitons?"
Given that GR predicts it but no evidence has accumulated so far.
thanks again
-
sereniac at 12:22 PM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
I think I'm getting a sense for this now. (But don't hold your breath).
My understanding so far is that essentially we would have to refute many known physical laws (boltzman's law etc etc etc) in order to refute the warming hypothesis.
I also think people are saying from scaddenp's comment that say a 5 year departure
from the projection envelope would be enough to suggest that although the science is still correct, practical limits in computation/data and other issues may be the reason for it.
Tom Curtis also mentioned that some commentators have suggested a 17-22 span of very low trends would imply the models (although not necessarily the science)
was in question.
Is that a fair summary?
I think it may be an unfair question since in some ways it is like asking "At what point
do we give up on the theory that gravity applies througout the universe?"
Thanks again
-
JasonB at 11:51 AM on 3 October 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #40A
"How not to write a headline about the IPCC's climate science report" should be pointing to here. It's currently linking to the New Scientist report instead.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing the glitch to our attention.
-
grindupBaker at 11:50 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
@sereniac #65 I stray a bit but still, if one accepts that heat was coming in because temperatures at the surface went up a bit (plus the physics) then one must ask "where will this heat go?". I did that without any prompting when I first looked at this 6 months ago and I found that 99.82% of ecosystem's heat is in water, 97.5% in oceans and I read that water is a fluid and mixes a bit compared to rocks so I concluded it goes there. So, heat has been coming in and there are 2 only possibilities (1) it goes in the oceans (2) it don't go in the oceans. I checked to see whether polystrofoam insulation layers were found in the oceans and found not excepy some gyre place. So then I thought will it in the oceans exactly the same amount each month, year & decade and all that winds and currents stuff indicated not. So, I would have been absolutely astounded, stunned, had surface temperature of the oceans risen smoothly year by year but it hasn't and I'm not.
-
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Sereniac - climate theory does not predict that GMST will follow a simple trend from any given start year. You cannot test a theory by comparing observations against projections that it does not make.
If, however, GMST (estimated from a measurement system consistant with models) departed from the envelope of all model runs using actual forcings (which it has yet to do), for periods of say 5 years or more, then you would conclude that the models were not doing a skillful job of representing climate. That does not even necessarily imply missing physics, (could just be poor computational representation) let alone evidence that climate theory is wrong. (AGW is a corallary from current climate theory, not really a theory in itself).
To falsify climate theory you need to show the physics is wrong. eg DLR or OLR is inconsistant with atmospheric composition; the spectral signature is not what calculated; the energy imbalance at TOA suddenly disappears; that total OHC decreases - or find exceptions to physics used in climate theory (eg Clausius–Clapeyron relation not holding). Really changing climate theory would be an alternative theory that is consistant with all known physics but which describes observations better than current theory.
-
sereniac at 11:43 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Thank you Tom Curtis for your very informative reply.
In your final para you indicate that " that three independent approaches all show the current "hiatus" to be almost entirely a product of ENSO."
Does that mean if the ENSO variation is added to the models, the "hiatus" disappears and the long term trend is restored for the period 1998 (or so) to 2012?
I would try to verify that myself but did not have a link to go to.
Thanks again for your help.
-
grindupBaker at 11:43 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
@sereniac #65 You are conflating separate issues, though both related to the topic. The purpose of simulation models is not to prove that heat is being added to the ecosystem, they would be quite inapproriate for that. Proof that heat is being added to the ecosystem is derived by measuring temperature and thus heat increase (~93% goes into the oceans), knowing the physics (I think it's 130 years scientists have known that) seeing satellite measurements graphed of heat going into space, by frequency, and noting dips at the frequencies which greenhouse gases absorb then realizing the Sun heat in is unaffected but the heat out is reduced and there's only one possible result can happen from that, a few ZettaJoules/year being dumped in the oceans. Some say ice-melt too, but then they must show it's not just ocean heat from elsewhere getting shoved around the seas & air to melt ice, I stick with the basic in/out for now. So, the purpose of simulation models is to project into the future what the effects will be using what climate scientists know about natural phenomena combined with assumptions about fossil fuel use (it's my understanding that frozen methane is ignored because they just don't have a handle on it). There are 2 entirely different skeptic claims (1) AGW does not exist, heat can't move into oceans, the Suns got hotter, cosmic rays increased water vapor & warmed us, intergalactic spiral arms did it, aliens, the Oort cloud, sub-surface magma, John Travolta) and (2) AGW exists and is what it is right now but the simulation models overestimate the future heat accumulation because the underestimate cloud cooling, overestimate H20 vapor heating, overestimate albedo change effects & overestimate future loss of biomass. It is erroneous, not logical analytical thinking, to conflate these 2 separate issues.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:31 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
sereniac @65, your question assumes that falsification is results from a simple yes/no, response. That is not in fact possible. As Pierre Duhem and Willard van Orman Quine observed, any hypothesis does not face the world on its own, but rather with a host of auxilliary hypotheses. Thus, for example, when Ole Rommer noted discrepancies between the observed motions of Jupiters moons, and those predicted by Newton's laws, he had a choice between assuming that those laws had been falsified, or that Newton's assumption of an infinite velocity of light had been falsified. He chose the later, and made the first determination of the velocity of light.
Turning to the trend in GMST, the low best estimated observed trend relative to model predictions is only a problem for the model predictions given a set of assumptions about GMST. One of those assumptions is that ENSO fluctuations have little or no influence on GMST. As there is a very strong correlation between ENSO states and GMST, that assumption appears to be falsified.
(Troublingly, AGW "skeptics" do not openly acknowledge that they are making that assumption when they draw attention to the low observed trend in GMST. Nor do they indicate which other hypothesis they are calling into question to preserve their apparent "belief" in no causal connection between ENSO states and GMST in the face of the strong correlation. {I place "belief" in inverted commas because the "skeptics", in other context frequently draw attention to the connection, assuming ENSO fluctuations cause GMST fluctuations, a belief they conveniently neglect when discussing the GMST trend since 1998.} They are therefore not undertaking the most essential feature of science - ie, keeping proper score of how your beliefs are fairing against empirical data.)
Returning to your question, how long the low observed trend can continue without falsifying AGW depends essentially on what other observations are made related to our auxilliary hypotheses. Thus, should there be a large tropical volcano in the next couple of years, the trend could continue low for another five years without any qualm. A series of record breaking La Nina events would have the same effect. In contrast, with a cessation of volcanic activity, as series of strong El Ninos and a strengthening solar output, continuation of a low trend would tend to falsify the model predictions within very few years.
Finaly, even with those events, falsification is not an absolute state. Model predictions are statistical, so "falsification" of models is also statistical. Consequently there is no hard cut of such that we can say after x years the model is falsified. Rather, with each extra year of no increase in the trend (given normal ENSO states, limited volcanism and constant solar output) the probability that the models are reasonably accurate declines. Those who have studied the issue have suggested between 17 and 22 years are the limits of very low trends given current estimates of anthropogenic forcing increases and no unusual ENSO or natural forcing changes. Beyond that, and certainly beyond 30 years we could consider the models to lack some essential factor in the equation. Personally, I am a bit more impatient, and would already have rejected median or higher estimates of climate sensitivity except that three independent approaches all show the current "hiatus" to be almost entirely a product of ENSO.
-
Leto at 11:24 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Jose,
The comment about 114/117 estimates being high came from franklefkin, not engineer, which I should have made clearer.
Any analogy can become strained if explored too literally, but my comment about the earth giving a "single run" was meant to propose that a run of forcings (volcanoes, enso effects) is like a hand of cards. A different run of forcings (say, a major el nino in 2012, and a la nina in 1998) would potentially have had us arguing in 2013 about why the models under-predicted the rise in surface temperature.
A single pick of a card is not a particularly useful analogy, because of the lack of independent tests of the model vs the real world. Of course, the degree of independence between various tests of the models depends on the time intervals being explored and the actual scientific questions being asked, which is where it becomes less useful to force the card analogy further.
On a related note, if we are considering 15-year trends, it should be remembered (by engineer, franklefin and others sympathetic to their views) that we have to go back 30 years to find a 15-year period not affected by the 1998 el nino. That is the main sense in which the last 30 years represents a "single run". Of course, there is no valid scientific reason to look at 15-year trends; it's just that the contrarians have latched onto that interval, perhaps because it maximises the distorting effect of 1998.
-
grindupBaker at 11:21 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
@engineer #22 "doesn't matter what you call it, predictions or projections....supposed to accurately predict natural phenomenon". No. Predictions require knowing future non-natural phenomena and knowing rare natural phenomena of great consequence. Need to know relevant decisions of U.S. President in 2038, the Sino-Russian-Luxembourg government in 2077, how many volcanoes and nuclear weapons exhanges will occur, and when, meteor impacts for predictions. Can only go with projections using the numerous energy and climate basics they are using presently in the simulations (Dr. Randall says they are looking at how life in the oceans mixes water, dunno if they got to that yet). It is spooky though how this dana1981 knows what I think, sounds conspiratorial-hoaxy.
-
sereniac at 10:50 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
This is a genuine question. There is no malice behind it and I hope that it is answered in that context. It is pretty much the kind of question that governments may soon be asking.
Question: If we extend the GMST trend from (a) 1998 (if that year is deemed anomalous) or (b) (2000), then at what point would it be reasonable to conclude that the AGW hypothesis has been rejected based only on modelling data.
I am not saying that there are not other forms of evidence.
Please take this as a genuine question. I realise that it is possible to obfuscate
by asking me to define specific data sets, model runs etc. but I'm sure it's
clearly a question that modellers have asked.
It is probably also one that governments will askas well as many open minded
lay persons.
Thank you
-
Steve Metzler at 09:41 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
@35 Kevin C:
Very well stated. Why can't the contrarians understand this, no matter how many times it's patiently explained to them? A hiatus in surface temperatures just means that the excess energy the Earth is accumulating has been displaced somewhere else. The trend over the past 30 years or more is still relentlessly upward, and the next big el Nino event is going to make 1998 look like a walk in the park.
My fav explanation of the TOA radiative physics is here, in a guest post by Spencer Weart at RC:
-
Gary_g at 08:41 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Math is not my favourite past time but I thought Engineer's example is what is misleading him. It has two problems. It is an example which uses integers to give an integer result, and it includes no iteration (the result of one cycle is fed into the next). As soon as you use floating point values and iterations any equation will go out of alignment within about 3-5 cycles. The opening chapter of Chaos and Fractals: New Frontiers of Science (2004) by Peitgen, Jürgens & Saupe does a nice job of showing this. It uses runs through iterative equations using diferent calculators that handle floating point rounding differently and within 3-5 iterations they rapidly get out of alignment. Just when you think you might be able to retain the illusion that one calculator might be correct they use the example of two mathematically equivalent equations with one calculator, and the same thing happens, within 3-5 iterations they are hopelessly out of alignment. The odd thing is that whilst a simulation is in a sense quite accurate it's not temporally precise.
That's the problem when you try to impose 19th century mechanistic thinking onto statistical mechanics. Once you admit statistics into reason you are saying that when you repeat an experiment you don't get the same result (if you did no need for statistics) but you might get an intelligible pattern. The use of the notion of falsifiabilty by Engineer is also misguided. It simply shows that academic logicians have not caught up with the math.
-
John Hartz at 07:53 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Here's the lead paragraph of a very informative article posted on the website of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
LIVERMORE, Calif. -- By comparing simulations from 20 different computer models to satellite observations, Lawrence Livermore climate scientists and colleagues from 16 other organizations have found that tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes are clearly related to human activities.
The article includes a sophisticated animated graphic. I highly recommend that everyone particpating in this comment thread check it out,
A human-caused climate change signal emerges from the noise by Anne M Stark, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dec 11, 2005
-
Rob Nicholls at 07:10 AM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
"This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo" seems to sum up perfectly Nigel Lawson's writings on the subject on climate change. Lord Lawson has surpassed even the wonders of his hilariously named book "An appeal to reason" with this article. It's almost a full house of climate change denial untruths. Calling AR4 "grotesquely flawed" is just beyond parody.
I expect the torygraph to print this kind of nonsense; it saddens me more that Lawson fairly regularly appears on BBC TV as some kind of authority on climate change, and always gets away with the same tired old rubbish - "no warming since year x"
[make x more recent as soon as sample size is enough for trend to reach statistical significance]". I've never seen him challenged on this on TV.
Unfortunately the BBC are doing a great job of making sure the IPCC's urgent message is lost by putting people like Lawson on almost every time global warming is discussed.
-
julesdingle at 06:58 AM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
Scientists, governments and thinking people accept the IPCC report but Lawson is appealing to the popular gallery, preaching to a right wing choir. The hope is that a popular uprising of voters will defy the science, unfortunately there is an element of capitalism who wish to keep business as usual whatever the cost.
A political statement perhaps [in defiance of comments policy but I trust this is within topic to stay]. Lawson's free market politics appears to behind much of the attempted discrediting of AGW/IPCC, now I don't know if Lawson or the right in general selfishly sell the dream of wealth for all to retain it for the 1% or believe that capitalism is the only way to rid the world of poverty. What is clear is the predominately right in the US, Europe, UK lean towards CC denial because dealing with it is political. Capitalism [and the 1%] has done rather well out of fossil fuels [as well as state sponsored scientific research- think iPhone and lots of other cool stuff].
Decarbonising need not be a socialist or back to nature and sandals green dream but whilst capitalism seems stuck with business as usual and refuses to think alternatives the only strategy is to get the voters to support the old system. The worst option is those of acceptance of CC using the fear for our children's future against the deniers weapon of fear of present prosperity.
-
Jose_X at 06:17 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
OK, KR, I'll try again.
Engineer, the long comment above (@59) may make a few things more clear if this next shorter version fails:
Let's perform a card draw experiment one time. We get a 2. You seem to be saying that the observed result of 2 is way below the average of 5.5. What others here say is that the 2 is within the range of the model's 95% window (if just barely). The model predicts an integer anywhere from 1 to 10, specifically, with at least 95% of the time coming in the range 2-9.
Would you say that the model for the card drawing is wrong because the single drawing of 2 is at the edge of the 95% window? So why would you say that a climate prediction is wrong if the measured earth temp lies at the edge of the 95% window?
Note, a "prediction" can be derived from the projection by taking the projection and replacing the parameters that were not known back when the projection was made.
Note, a prediction necessarily has an error range. An experiment on a simple system can yield a tight error range prediction (ie, a small "prediction interval"). Those models claim high accuracy. The climate model does not claim high accuracy. However, to say the climate is wrong you must show that the data does not easily fit within the wide error range used by the models. You seem to think that the climate models have to have a narrow range or they are wrong. Not so. While a wide range might mean the model is useless (eg, my useless model predicts the global temp this year will be between 0 C and 100 C), that in itself doesn't mean the imprecise model is wrong. In a sense, a model can be "imprecise" yet "accurate".
Note, the climate models are not that imprecise since they predict, contrary to what contrarians predict themselves, that it's very likely (over 95% confidence) that the temp in 2100 will be higher than where we are now. A useless model would peg that probability at 50%. And most contrarians peg it much less than 50%, likely making them less than useless (ie, wrong). -
funglestrumpet at 05:56 AM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
Perhaps Lawson's position would be more easily understood if he were to disclose where the funding originates for his Global Warming Policy Foundation. His errors that are highlighted in this article could be down to ignorance, I suppose, but considering their consistent thrust, it is difficult not to see them as deliberate in nature. With that in mind, I sincerely hope that the aforementioned funding for his G.W.P.F. does not have the fossil fuel industry as its source. For were that the case, it would be difficult to imagine that his behavior would not be brought to the attention of The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards.
The House of Lords code requires that “Members of the House shall base their actions on consideration of the public interest.” Trying to ensure that climate change continues unabated, which his statement:
“So what we should do about it [climate change] – if indeed, there is anything at all we need to do – is to adapt to any changes that may, in the far future, occur. That means using all the technological resources open to mankind – which will ineluctably be far greater by the end of this century than those we possess today – to reduce any harms that might arise from warming, while taking advantage of all the great benefits that warming will bring.”
seems intended to achieve is hardly in the public interest.
Even if there is no fossil fuel element influencing Lawson’s motives, he has to realize that his peerage is intended to enable him to protect the U.K., its Head of State and its people, and he is rewarded accordingly. Seeing as that reward comes from the public purse, if he is to continue in the role his peerage designates, the least he can do is take the trouble to get his facts straight.
If he is no longer up to doing that, even on issues as potentially important as climate change, perhaps he would be better advised to resign his peerage and give younger blood the chance, especially seeing as they are likely to suffer more from the effects of climate change than someone of his advanced years will. Accordingly they will be far more motivated to do a proper job of protecting their country (and their family) than Lawson can claim to have if his comments on the I.P.C.C. are any guide.
-
Composer99 at 05:23 AM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
Lawson, like so many denialists before him (and surely after), is trying to sell us gold in Busang. Unfortunately, as with the real deal, too many are willing to try and get a piece of the action.
-
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Jose_X - No offense, but... Brevity is the soul of wit.
-
Jose_X at 04:47 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
engineer:
You said (@44) your problem was in part in not agreeing on the value being placed here to differentiate between projections vs predictions ("but why is this distinction between prediction and projection even necessary? the terms are interchangable") yet your main dispute is that the models fail to live up to reality. I think you understand projections but are forgetting what a prediction actually means, and this is why you think the models are being falsified by the data.
For reference, I'll quote 2 other commenters.
Leto addressed your statement ("being on the high side 114 out of 117 times is indicative of a bias") by saying,
> You can observe that process 117 times, or 117000 times, and it does not mean that the model has been falsified unless you choose time points that are truly independent.
Mammal_E had earlier said,
> Let's say I have a model that simulates the outcome of process of drawing cards from a shuffled deck. I run the model once, and it generates a 3 of diamonds. I have an actual shuffled deck, and draw a 10 of clubs. The model and reality disagree.
First, let me adjust the example above from Mammal_E. The model is instead run 117 times (not once) and the average is (assuming we ignore the face cards) 5.5. Now let's perform the draw experiment one time (to match the "single" time that the Earth performs its experiment). We get a 2.
You seem to be saying that the observed result of 2 is way below the average of 5.5. [You stress this point by using the extreme example of getting a certain card 20 times in a row to start the experiment.]
What others here say is that the 2 is within the range of the model's 95% window (if just barely). The model predicts an integer anywhere from 1 to 10, specifically, with at least 95% of the time coming in the range 2-9.
Would you say that the model for the card drawing is wrong because the single drawing of 2 is at the edge of the 95% window? Even if we had drawn a 1, we'd still follow the model.
Maybe you understand this example above and it improves your understanding of the climate modeling, but let's add more details.
Now, can we run the experiment on the earth more than once? Well, I think this is part of what might be confusing you. To address this, we can map the card analogy in at least two ways to the earth system.
In way one, we treat a single year as a sample pick. Note that since the average temp doesn't change that fast year to year, this example is not a good model for independence (like the card pick is), but it does get at the basic point of whether the climate model is correct or not.
So let's go back to mid 1970s (since that appears to be around when the temps started a notable upward trend from which they have not recovered). The question would be, has the actual earth temp for each year since 1975 been within the 95% model range close to 95% of the time? I won't answer that, but you can consider that question for yourself first before marrying the analogy of picking a card 20 times in a row. While the modern models didn't exist back then, we can take a modern model and hindcast. I think the models are calibrated that way and in fact the answer would be close to "yes". I don't know the specifics, but unless you do, I don't see how you would argue that the model (or a particular set of projections) is off by a lot or even by a little. Does the data fit the models' range most of the time? What data not matching the 95% boundary nearly 95% of the time are you using to claim that the applicable predictions are "falsified"?
A second way of looking at this is to look at linear trends across time periods of a certain size. This is similar. Here we might look at all the earth data for 15 year subintervals since 1975 and see how those trends match the projection trends. That would provide fewer data points, but its the same general idea in the limiting case (of us being able to have a very long superinterval of data points).
[Note that Leto and others referred to the earth providing a single draw, but that is if we zoom in on a single subinterval. And this single draw was constrasted to the numerous model simulation runs that are used to calculate the expected range for that single subinterval.]
Do you agree with the above? Did it help?
If you are still wondering about predictions vs projections:
First, don't assume that a prediction gives an exact value in physics. While in a textbook we might calculate the final position of a particle as "x=27.98". In dealing with observations, such a prediction would come with an error interval.. always! Mammal_E called this by its technical name, a "prediction interval," in comment 28.
Because the earth system is complex, the prediction interval for average global temp for the planet has a somewhat wide range for any given year as based on the model projections. This contrasts to very narrow widths for some physics predictions that rely on simple well understood systems. Regardless, for the model to be a good one, we'd want near 95% of the "independent" observations to lie in the particular model's own 95% prediction interval. You have not shown that the earth climate has been off the 95% yearly model range in significantly more than 95% of the years.
As for projections, that is like a wide set of predictions (parameterized set of implied predictions). This parameterization ("vagueness") is necessary because we don't know many of the x (sub i) variables in the future, so we provide distinct prediction graphs for several potential x values as a way to convey a general feel for what is expected to happen.
I do think you understand projections. You appear to agree that we want to look precisely only at the actual "prediction" for the actual x values that are today known but weren't back when the projections were made. You agree, I think, that to judge an earlier projection/model, we want to first pin down the observed variables and then treat the resulting statistics of the numerous model runs as the relevant prediction we are judging.
Anyway, I think you forgot that all predictions come with error ranges. To show the climate models are wrong, you can't judge them by the narrow ranges used in simple Newtonian mechanics examples but must judge by the wide boundary claimed by the models for predicting the complex earth system.
Now, you might think that using a wide error range means the model is whimpy. Yes, if we had an error range of +/- 100 C, then that model is useless as any temp we'd observe would almost surely fit in there. If you want to make that claim of whimpiness, do so, but that is a different claim than to say that the models are wrong.
And as for being whimpy, the current models predict a 95% range for 2100 that lies entirely above our current temps. In contrast, most contrarians would have a range (if they believed in using error ranges to more properly quantify their guesses) that would have a lower end way below our current temps. Also the mean of the models lies several degrees above our temp today while most contrarians would have a mean below the current temp. ["most contrarians" is a vague notion, true.] -
John Russell at 04:31 AM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
So Lawson rubbishes Dr. Rajendra Pachauri by calling him“a railway engineer and economist by training, not a scientist”? Consequently I guess this makes it legitimate to point out the fact that Nigel Lawson is "not even an engineer, just an economist, not a scientist"; which I guess by Lawson's account means his own opinions are worth even less.
This leads nicely into my other point: the Lawson family seem partial to coming out with 'deniatribes'. Witness Nigel's son, Dominic Lawson, in last weekend's Sunday Times (behind a paywall but also re-printed in The Australian). In this article, entitled "A warm consensus, but the planet is not following suit", he makes an incredibly stupid comparison between the consensus of the IPCC's climate scientists and the economists who, almost to a man, failed to foresee the economic crash of 2007. How he can arrive at the view there is any equivalence between climate research and the opinions of economists beggars belief.
A warm consensus, but the planet is not following suit - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-warm-consensus-but-the-planet-is-not-following-suit/story-fnb64oi6-1226729516410#sthash.2t38mD92.dpufA warm consensus, but the planet is not following suit - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-warm-consensus-but-the-planet-is-not-following-suit/story-fnb64oi6-1226729516410#sthash.2t38mD92.dpuf -
jja at 04:01 AM on 3 October 2013Lawson, Climate Change and the Power of Wishful Thinking
Perhaps the IPCC would have more success forwarding their report if they included a breakout discussion, as a subset of the executive summary, that showed how the uncertainties contained within the carbon cycle climate feedbacks (fig. 6.27) were not included when projecting the fossil fuel emissions required to yeild the RCP 8.5 scenario (fig. 6.25).
from the discussion for figure 6.25, page 6-55
climate impact on carbon uptake by both land and oceans will reduce the compatible fossil fuel CO2 emissions for that scenario by between 6% and 29% between 2006 and 2100 respectively (Figure 6.27) equating to an average of 157 ± 76 PgC
and
Compatible emissions would be reduced by a greater degree under higher CO2 scenarios which exhibit a greater degree of climate change (Jones et al., 2006).
Figure 6.25 only shows 1 standard deviation. The uncertainty in cumulative land-based carbon cycle uptake in figure 6.24 is +/- 250 PgC by 2100 (+/- 918 gigatonnes of CO2).
f this uncertainty was adequately addressed in a discussion that included an ECS of 4C for 2XCO2, then it would be clearly shown that we are on track for locking in 4C of warming before 2050 on our current emission trajectory. -
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
MarkR - Regarding the McIntyre link and the draft Fig. 1.4 discussed, that figure showed the range of projected model trends +/- observed HadCRUT temperature 2σvariability, not +/- the model variability.
Models are currently running high - and seven years ago, as Tamino points out, they were running low. However, the periods for which they have been high or low with regards to observations are too short for statistical significance.
-
MarkR at 02:03 AM on 3 October 2013IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
This 'real world realisation' which affects baselining is also important for short term trends.
Firstly, you can use Kevin C's trend tool to get a 95% confidence interval on the trend from 1997, and find it's between -0.07 and +0.19 C/decade.
But that's a purely frequentist estimate of the probability based on assuming we know nothing about the noise and that it's completely random. But we do know something about the noise: we know solar activity is much lower than expected and that there has recently been a trend towards more La Ninas if you choose to start in 1998.
Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) tried to address this, but I understand that there are continuing difficulties with that sort of assessment. Kosaka & Xie's new paper is interesting: they found that according to the model, the real world realisation of El Nino and La Nina means that the model does a good job of reproducing the recent changes.
The fact that most of the models are running high does not show that most of them are wrong yet. Based on the fact we've seen a negative trend in the ENSO index, we know that if the models are right then most of them would overestimate the warming trend since 1998 because the model average should be close to no trend in ENSO activity.
If we had enough models and could only select the runs that featured a similar trend in ENSO, then we'd have a better idea of whether the models were actually overestimating warming or not. Kosaka & Xie's paper suggests that they might not be.
Prev 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 Next
