I was back at the Future Summit today listening to more speakers lament climate change and how it is going to be drier and warmer in the future. Tom Hatten from CSIRO could have spoken about the science, but he also deferred to perceptions commenting that “climate change scenarios are now widely accepted” – as though this makes them right.
Then I came home to an email from a reader of this blog with a link to a report published by the New South Wales Parliamentary Library in February that does make reference to the science and that does acknowledge that the evidence is not straight forward concluding with the following text (pg 75):
“In October 2005 the Federal Minister for the Environment stated that the debate on climate change is over: “There is a very small handful of what we call skeptics who, in the face of seeing all of the evidence about carbon increases and all of the evidence about impacts on the climate, would still say that it’s only natural variability that is causing it. … I think the Australian Government owes it to the public to tell it like it is – it is a very serious threat to
Australia.”In NSW, Premier Iemma, in a November 2005 speech announcing a new environmental agenda, stated:
2005 is the year that climate change hit home. Australia had its warmest year on record. Brazil had its first ever hurricane. Siberia’s permafrost showed signs of melting. America had a record hurricane season that devastated an entire city. For NSW, global warming means longer and more destructive bushfire seasons, prolonged
drought and harsher storm seasons. These trends threaten not only our environment but also our tourism and farming industries. While John Howard continues to hold out against Kyoto, NSW is getting on with the task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.In fact, we [New South Wales] were the first government in Australia to set greenhouse targets. We’ve pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050. And to cut emissions to year 2000 levels within the next two decades.
This paper has presented the ‘consensus’ science about climate change, as well as the evidence and comments of those who are more skeptical, or cautious. It is apparent that whilst those who believe in the ‘consensus’ science reject the ideas of the skeptics, the science is not as ‘black and white’ as they would have us believe. Some argue that while the greenhouse effect cannot be ignored, the impact is not as apocalyptic as has been claimed.
The difficulty for governments of course, is to use this conflicting science to develop public policy.”
Of course the governments, and some scientists, have mostly choosen to ignore the evidence and just focus on “the consensus”. But as Aldous Huxley has written, just because facts are ignored it doesn’t make them go away.
You can read the full report here:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jennifer,
Would you mind presenting a short list of the “facts that won’t go away”? I should first clarify a couple of things:
“Consensus” for me means this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
so if you are just referring to the uncertainties about what emissions the future will bring or the existence of some scientists outside of this consensus, never mind. But if you think there is evidence that is being ignored that contradicts the consensus as defined above I would be very grateful to know what it is.
Thanks!
check the Greenhouse Warming Scorecard
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Hey Coby, maybe read the report i’ve linked too – sort of refreshing in that it acknowledges conflicting positions.
i was feeling a bit frustrated at the conference with everyone telling everyone that global warming means the world is going to get drier (not even what the IPCC says)… global warming being blamed for our current water restrictions (which are just a lack of investment in infrastructure and no investment in water recycling) …all seems very naive.
Jennifer – “Of course the governments, and some scientists, have mostly choosen to ignore the evidence and just focus on “the consensus”.”
However you are ignoring the fact that this consensus came from a thorough and complete examining of the facts and science. It did not just come out of the air. So far skeptics have failed to provide any new scientific evidence showing that these facts are wrong.
Warwich Hughes scorecard is nothing more that the usual beat up of climate models which are only a part of the evidence.
Also as I said before there are almost no skeptics doing real science. They are not contibuting to the body of scientific knowledge they are just critiquing other peoples work.
re:
check the Greenhouse Warming Scorecard
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Item one and two are clearly false, 1900-2000 temperatures are modeled quite well in the TAR:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
Where do they get 3.3oC predictions or .58/decade troposphere predictions? I have never heard this expectation before.
They claim that borehole analysis indicates the MWP “exists” and point to this page as evidence:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N5/C3.jsp
That page says nothing at all about the MWP. NOAA claims that “The idea of a global or hemispheric “Medieval Warm Period” that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.”
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html
I stopped there because they start to get into a lot of very specific claimed model predictions that I don’t know anything about and they cite the 1995 IPCC report alot…
Anyone want to defend them?
Getting back to the original posting. So Ender and Coby thinks the report I quote is wrong in its conclusions … that it is all very “white and white” … sorry “black and black”?
Jennifer, thanks, I did have a look at the report just now. I was rather surprised that they quote and reference a science fiction author with no training in the subject of climate science, but so did the US senate…strange times.
What I think of by “facts” and “evidence” when you said there are some that are being ignored are things like the troposphere shows no warming trend (no anymore) or the antarctic is cooling not warming (true but not unexpected).
There are theories and sceptics, but that’s not what I meant. Is that what you meant by facts in “just because facts are ignored it doesn’t make them go away”?
Because if so I don’t think they have been ignored, they have been refuted. Facts, on the other hand can’t be refuted they need to be explained. What facts are there that can not be explained by the science of the consensus crowd?
Well, yes, I guess I do think it is wrong in its conclusion. Considering they had to refer to Michael Crichton for “scientific contention” is rather telling.
The hockey stick is a different matter, at least for me because I do not have the technical skills to judge the issue for myself. But it is 8 years old and more and more studies keep coming in that support its general conslusions, which are the most important element.
Why is this report discussing an eight year old study? Why is anyone?
Also why are they presenting pronouncements from the WWF about calamitous antarctic melting? This is a strawman, the IPCC TAR does not predict any ice sheet collapse. I find those things a bit of a concern:
– quoting a science fiction author
– discussing an 8 year old study
– debunking environmental activist’s claims
Add to that the discussion about how the earth has been much warmer in the past, this is a really big red herring.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html
The more I am looking at that report, the more it seems like they have really “drunk the kool aid” so to speak.
So it comes down to ‘the authority’ of the sources not the information they present…
and so your conclusion is that we can stop climate change and its all very black and black?
If you are setting out to determine if there is a scientific consensus, then yes, using a science fiction author who has done no scientific research in this field whatsoever can be legitimately be dismissed on the basis of the source. Of course. Would you be happy if they had just asked 10 random people on the street if they do or do not agree with the scientific consensus? Why don’t they quote John Stossel? Would you defend a report that concluded the science is solid if it did so based on the writings of Andrew Revkin? Of course you wouldn’t.
If you want to know what the medical community thinks, ask doctors. If you want to know why your car won’t start, ask a mechanic. If you want to know what the findings of climate science are, ask climate scientists. This is not weak willed cow-towing to authority it is just good sense. If you are a fiercly independent thinker who needs to know for yourself, then read the papers for yourself and verify the methods and calculations and data sources. Don’t read State of Fear.
If you want me to address the argument and not the source then find me a scientific argument of Michael Crichton’s, there certainly is not one that report. Crichton’s contribution to that report is the very false “they predicted cooling in the 70’s” argument, which is easily shown to be wrong.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
Coby,
The report presents evidence and discusses theories … but you and Ender always seem much more interested in who said what, not what they said. … and I’m surprised you continue to run this line given the 60, or was it 90, climate scientists who wrote to the Canadian PM expressing their concerns re. the scientific consensus on climate change. …and I’m not interested in your “illconsidered” blog spot and I wish you gave others a bit more of a go here.
I see. I present a logical argument and post a link to a scientific paper, or scientific institution’s explanation of an issue as support and I am just interested in who said what. You post the opinions of Vincent Grey and you are interested in evidence and theories. Sorry, doesn’t wash.
As was pointed out to you before, the 60 signatories of that letter were not all climate scientists, and since there is no scientific argument presented, isn’t this one of those appeals to authority you are too fiercely independent to pay attention to? As an appeal to authority it is a fair attack to note that letter’s claim of 60 “experts in climate related fields” is a lie. Here is a listing of examples of signatories who do not fit that description:
> Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University
> of Guelph, Ont.
> Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography,
> University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
> Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in
> environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics,
> University of Victoria
> Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and
> Sioux Lookout, Ont.
> Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
> Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and
> Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group
> II, chapter 8 (human health)
> Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of
> Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
> Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University
> of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
> Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board,
> Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International
> Relations) and an economist
> Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The
> Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington,
> N.Z.
> Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
> Connecticut
> Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science,
> Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
> Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial
> College London, U.K.
> Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and
> Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member,
> United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters,
> 1994-2000
> Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion,
> Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
> Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
> Cave Junction, Ore.
> Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden
> University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands
> organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and
> public health
> Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international
> economist
On top of that at least one of the signatories has recanted and said it was misrepresented to him what this was (another fact you have been told but because of your agenda you ignore it)
Again: Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, says he was tricked into signing! He does not doubt that climate change is real and he is recanting and wishing he had never signed “that damn petition”.
http://www.desmogblog.com/signatory-bails-on-anti-climate-science-petition
How many others? Don’t be a sucker.
Coby, In the RealClimate post “Just what is this consensus anyway?’ to which you’ve directed us, William says that ‘By IPCC, people tend to mean WGI’.
Well, I don’t. By IPCC, I tend to mean the IPCC, the body that decided in November 2003 that ‘the SRES scenarios provide a credible and sound set of projections, appropriate for use in AR4.’ Like nearly every economist who’s examined these scenarios, I believe that most of these scenarios are neither credible nor sound. So I’m not part of any consensus which includes propositions that depend on the IPCC scenarios being credible and sound.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the SRES scenarios ARE credible, sound and suitable for use in establishing the ‘consensus’ view. Part of this ‘consensus’ upon which William tells us that most would agree is the proposition that ‘If GHG emissions continue … the warming … will accelerate.’
It follows, I think, that James Hansen and the 45 co-authors of the paper that was recently submitted to ‘Geophysical Research Letters’ are not part of the ‘consensus’? Because in that paper, these scientists say:
(a) ‘Observed global warming … has been nearly constant at almost 0.15 deg. C/decade over the past 3-4 decades …’ (p. 15); and
(b) ‘Global warming … rang[es] from 1.1 deg. C in [SRES] scenario B1 …’ (p. 23).
If the rate of global warming accelerates from its rate of ‘almost 0.15 C /decade over the past 3 or 4 decades’, it is an ineluctable arithmetical conclusion that the warming to the year 2100 will exceed 1.5 C/decade.
The 1.1 C warming projected by the B1 emissions scenario using GISS modelE therefore implies a DECELERATION in warming, and this deceleration would be more marked in the case of the B1T MESSAGE scenario, in which cumulative CO2 emissions across the century are 25% lower than in the B1 marker.
So it would appear that Hansen et al could not support the ‘consensus’ position that warming WILL accelerate, but rather take the position that it WOULD accelerate if emissions follow the trajectory in the scenarios that they (wrongly) characterise as BAU scenarios. Perhaps Hansen et al think that likely, but I’ve explained in detail why I don’t. And I’m familiar with relevant sources (e.g., the IEA World Energy Outlook 2005) that Hansen et al haven’t cited.
On the ‘Is the Troposphere Warming?’ thread, you (Coby) have rejected the Hansen et al temperature projections from the B1 scenario (‘I will go out on a limb by not trying to find out and instead just suggest he may be including some of his other mitigation measures such as soot and methane reductions that he often talks about’).
I don’t follow this argument at all. The B1 scenario projects substantial reductions in emissions of Black Carbon (BC), organic carbon (OC) and methane (CH4): see the SRES Tables in Appendix II of the WGI report. Hansen et al can’t simply feed in ‘other’ mitigation measures that Hansen ‘often talks about’ and still report that the resulting temperature increase is from the B1 scenario.
I take the temperature increase of 1.1 deg C that they have reported as the GISS modelE projection of the B1 IMAGE emissions scenario, and I am interested in knowing why the warming to 2100 resulting from these emissions is so much less than under the models used by the IPCC.
In the ‘update’ section of his post on the ‘consensus’, William says that ‘0.15 would be better [than 0.1, as the recent rate of warming] and the years since 2001 have been warm, pushing it up further. I’ve now replaced my first figure with the figure of 0.17 C/decade since 1976, from the IPCC report’.
This adjustment isn’t consistent with Hansen et al: see proposition (a) above from their paper dated 22 December 2005. Incidentally, when William says that the years since 2001 have been ‘warm, pushing [the trend rate of warming] up further, he is talking about the climate? But when I point out that the first four months of 2006 have had the lowest average temperature for those months since 2001, I’m talking about the weather?
I don’t accept your distinction. There is a fair bit of noise in the series, but this doesn’t alter the fact that the higher the assumed underlying rate of warming, the less likely it becomes that over a four-months period the mean global temperature will be lower than during the corresponding months of each of the previous four years. In other words, the more likely it becomes that the assumed underlying rate of warming must be questioned.
You argue that you ‘don’t think there is any useful information whatsoever for climate, let alone climate trends, in month to month comparisons’. These are NOT month-to-month comparisons: they are comparisons for a successions of months with the corresponding months in a succession of preceding years – and the effect of the comparison is to raise a significant question about the conclusions that William has drawn from post-2001 observations.
It is high time that someone produced some trend series using the techniques commonly used in time series analysis of economic data, so that the most recent observations are duly taken into account (but not unduly taken into account).
Where I said ‘1.5 C/decade’ near the beginning of the above post, I of course meant ‘1.1 C’.
Coby, You note that the hockey stick ‘is 8 years old and more and more studies keep coming in that support its general conclusions, which are the most important element’.
Questions have arisen about whether the ‘more and more studies’ are fully independent, even if the authors of some of these studies felt justified in believing that they were. In this connection, one of Steve McIntyre’s recent posts on Climate Audit is worth noting:
“Once Briffa realized the updated Polar Urals data set had a high Medieval Warm Period, he SUBSTITUTED the nearby Yamal data set which has a pronounced Hockey Stick shape and CALLED it “Polar Urals”. The substituted data was quickly incorporated into subsequent Hockey Stick studies – Mann and Jones 2003, Osborn and Briffa 2006, D’Arrigo et al 2006, etc.“ (EMPHASES added).
Of course, if Professor Briffa is able to demonstrate that this claim is untrue, there will be adverse consequences for McIntyre. Given the seriousness of the matter, I am surprised that Briffa does not seem to be giving a high priority to responding to McIntyre’s questions.
Ian,
“I’m not part of any consensus which includes propositions that depend on the IPCC scenarios being credible and sound.”
That’s fine. The page I linked to defines the “consensus” as:
1. The earth is getting warmer
2. People are causing this
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)
(note 4 is acknowledged as less widespread)
These don’t depend on the SRES scenarios. No one has claimed there is a consensus about what the future will bring, but risk management is all about that fact.
About the whole climate-weather thing, yes there is a difference between 5 years and 1 year, but 5 years is still a short time. It would be long enough to make a casual comment (as William did) about a trend continueing or reversing and it is long enough to extend the record by five years and apparently to change the rate by .02/decade, pretty insignificant. Nobody as far as I can see is claiming that this prooves we have acceleration. If it dropped or leveled for five years, that too would be no proof of anything. I know that’s frustratingly slow, but that is the reality. Think of how long the temperature has been rising now and yet it is only very recently that the consensus position has accepted it is a definite trend.
I don’t know why you fixate so much on small differences like William said .17 yet Hansen said .15 so who’s right? Papers are always modifying, reversing, improving what have you, time is what decides what the truth was. In a sense, the big, slow, ponderous IPCC process, frustrating as it is, is a good way to find out what is settled and accepted versus what is new and untried. You’ll note that the consensus I quoted above does not try to use any exact numbers.
“the higher the assumed underlying rate of warming, the less likely it becomes that over a four-months period the mean global temperature will be lower than during the corresponding months of each of the previous four years.”
Yes, you are correct. But unlikely things do happen, so if it happens once or twice you do not know if it means anything or if it is just an unlikely occurance. That is the essential point and this is why I insist that the most recent observations tell you nothing you can rely on.
As I wrote in an earlier thread, if you look at the NASA GISS analysis here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
it is clear that over the last 30 years the climate has been warming. But if you were to react, as you seem to suggest we should, always to the very latest observations, then over this time of nothing really changing, you would have concluded that global warming: stopped in 1979 – started in 1980 – stopped in 1981 – started in 1984 – stopped in 1989 – started in 1993 – stopped in 1997 – started in 1998, and that is using five year smoothing. Going year to year you would have flip-flopped 17 times in thirty years.
The very latest observations, just like any single observation, carry VERY little information.
What do you think it would mean if the MWP had in fact been global and as warm as late 20th century?
I have read an argument, and it made sense to me, that if this were the case it would mean that natural climate variability is greater than currently thought. This would imply a higher sensitivity to forcing than the climate system is currently thought to have. And that would actually imply that we are probably in even more trouble.
When estimating sensitivity, the models are constrained by past climate changes. If they reacts too strongly to past forcings then they will react too strongly to current ones and those factors that need to be estimated from observation rather than physical principles msut be estimated down. Loosening those constraints will only mean that climate sensitivity is higher.
Coby, Of course the statement that ‘If GHG emissions continue, the warming will.. accelerate’ doesn’t depend on the SRES scenarios. On the contrary, several of those scenarios show that the opposite is true: emissions could continue to RISE for some decades and the rate of warming would DEcelerate over this century, according to Hansen et al (2005).
This is also shown by one of the models used in the TAR, which projected a rise of 1.4 C between 1990 and 2100 and of ~1.25 C for the century (compared with the current rate of warming of .15 C per decade. So there’s no IPCC consensus that the waarming WILL accelerate: the IPCC consensus is that it MAY accelerate, depending on whose model and which emissions scenario. All scenarios assume that emissions will continue.
You say in the one breath that the consensus includes that ‘the warming.. WILL accelerate’ (EMPHASIS added), and in the next that ‘No one has claimed there is a consensus about what the future will bring’.
William didn’t make a comment about a trend continuing or REVERSING: he went out of his way to say that ‘the years since 2001 have been warm, PUSHING IT UP FURTHER’ (EMPHASIS added). Meanwhile Hansen and his colleagues, in a paper completed only months ago, said that ‘Observed global warming … has been NEARLY CONSTANT at ALMOST 0.15 C decade over the past 3-4 decades..’ (EMPHASES added).
In my opinion, the acceleration in the rate of warming that is supposedly part of the consensus cannot be identified in the observational data so far. I’m not saying it won’t be identified in the future, I’m saying that it can’t be identified yet.
It’s true that the latest observations carry little information. If, however, it was the other way around – if the latest observations had continued to be consistent with a more rapid rate of warming than the average rate in recent decades – at a certain point the presumption will be that acceleration has occurred. And that point will be apparent with a given probability sooner if trend information (not necessarily just one series) is provided.
You rightly note that if you look at the data for the last thirty years, there’s been a warming, and Hansen et al say, rightly in my opinion, that it’s been at a ‘nearly constant’ rate. I think that your statement that even with five year smoothing there are ups and downs reveals a misunderstanding of what the 5-year moving average represents.
I said earlier that the trend might need to look at observations over a longer period than 5 years, but the important requirement is to get away from the arbitrariness that is introduced by weighting the five years equally.
For example the 5-year average centred on 2000 includes the 1998 ‘spike’, whereas the 5-year average centred on 2001 doesn’t. So the moving average for the year 2001 was bound to go down unless 2003 turned out to be warmer than 1998, which it wasn’t.
What do I think it would mean if the MWP had in fact been global and as warm as late 20th century? I don’t know. Consistently with your advice that ‘If you want to know what the medical community thinks, ask doctors. If you want to know why your car won’t start, ask a mechanic. If you want to know what the findings of climate science are, ask climate scientists’, I’d ask climate scientists.
I was responding to your statement that NOAA had said that “The idea of a global or hemispheric “Medieval Warm Period” that was warmer than today.. has TURNED OUT to be incorrect” (EMPHASIS added), and the link to the NOAA statement.
For a long time the consensus of scientists was that that view was CORRECT. The opposite view – that the MWP was definitely not warmer than today – is of relatively recent origin.
The answers given by a number of scientists at the NAS hearing on this subject in early-March seem to me to imply that they believe that there is insufficient evidence to enable a definitive statement to be made about whether the MWP was or was not warmer than at present. I don’t know whether the report of the NAS panel will accept that view.
Of course, research efforts should continue. Unfortunately, some of the leading scientists in the area seem to be more interested in protecting their patches than in advancing knowledge. For example, Professor Briffa refused to provide data that d’Arrigo et al had sought for their recent paper.
If these scenarios are real
I am now in two minds as to whether the issue is as black and white as some would say.
Same here Rog.
The A1FI scenario makes the whole world twice(?) as rich as the current USA. So there won’t be any “poor countries” left who suffer global warming, and the then rich countries have the funds to adapt.
Having read the NSW Parliamentary Library report, I am even more convinced that it is Not as black and white as the alarmists would have us believe. But there are some things in the NSW report which I found very interesting indeed.
1. P2 says that of the 32c which we enjoy now is made up of 21c from water vapour and 7c from Co2. This seems to be consistent with what Pielke is saying,namely that co2 is only responsible for less than 26% of any warming.
2. p3 repeats the rate of global warming figure of 0.15c/decade. But last week the UK people were saying that detecting 0.1 over a decade in a variable that varies 10c between night and day is very dubious. I would have thought it was statistical nonsense,particularly so when the global figures would vary +/_ 60c, at the least. If it was a decision relating to whether nor not to use some new drug, the answer would have to be, dont.The drug would be useless, with a >95% level of confidence.
3. They say that, no systematic changes in precipitation has been detected in the Southern Hemisphere. The time series graph of Australia’s Annual rainfall,see page 60, shows that over the last 100 years there has been bugger all change. I am sure the various State govts who paid for and received CSIRO reports on climate change as it affects their states would be interested in this.
I am also sure that the members of the public who were alarmed by the nonsense peddled by the various Enviro Ministers based upon these documents would like to be told this as well.
But then those documents were more about the politics of it all, than any rational discourse. Oh of course, and putting money into the CSIRO.
4. Following on from 3 above, Zilman says that “little reliance can be placed upon regional projections of climate change.”
But then when one looks at the resolution of the computational grid it is probably only one point very 200 kms, a lot larger than most regions anyway.Someone ought to tell those that continue to insist that regional changes are imminent
5. Dr Paltridge adds that if the IPCC is to maintain its credibilty it needs to insist that the modellers must publish the implicit feedback factors built into their calculations. If this is the case, namely that the feed back factors are not being public, then it is an appalling state of affairs, that the IPCC rip off merchants cant even get the fundamentals right.But then why would they want to.Unless it was serious they wouldnt get any more money for bigger and better computers.
6. Similarly the prior para dealing with how the fact that because these modellers are sharing routines/ideas etc then the models will tend to converge. This is so blindingly obvious one has to ask just what sort of people are in charge here.
7 I note on page 58 that the sign, positive/negative, of cloud feedback is not known, meaning we dont have any idea what the effect of clouds is at all. But IPCC prima donnas are quite sure that we are likely to be frying in hell by 2050.
The thing in the parliamentary report that I found most interesting was the fact that as a matter of physics the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic, and that presumed exponential increases in CO2 emissions tend to counteract that to give a linear increase in temperatures. (p.44)
It also says that in fact CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially.
The report seems to suggest that the historical levels of CO2 used by the climate models ignores the real increase in CO2.
Whatever, could it be that the stasis that Bob Carter points to in recent climate change is a result of the slowdown in carbon emission growth?
Does anyone know what is the temperature limit attributable to the CO2 part of the greenhouse?
Graham,
The facts that the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is logarithmic, and that it has not been increasing exponentially, are brought out in the well-documented critique of the scientific sections of the UK Stern Review by the Australian Lavoisier Group (available online at the Lavoisier web site (“Latest at Lavoisier”, 19 March) and on the Stern Review website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_responses2.cfm .
The reasoned and reasonable Lavoisier document and the NSW Parliamentary Library Reference Service report stand in striking contrast to our supposedly non-partisan ABC. Introducing the concluding comments on “The Greenhouse Mafia” program on Four Corners on 13 February, Janine Cohen said:
“Meanwhile, global carbon emissions are rising at a rapid rate. By 2050, they are EXPECTED to more than double, CAUSING A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN WARMING, as much as FOUR DEGREES.”
As a 4 degrees warming by 2050 is more than twice as great as the highest IPCC projection, I made a complaint to the Audience and Consumer Affairs Department. I paste in here an extract of their response:
“According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change figures, global warming could result in an increase in temperature of more than four degrees by 2100 [see Note 1 below]. Some scientists see this as conservative, others don’t.
“Climate change scientist Dr Graeme Pearman, who appeared in the program, says ‘the kinds of expectations from what is now a very solid set of science is that we could have several degrees change in temperature this century possibly as much as five degrees’ [see Note 2 below].
“Climate change scientist Dr Barrie Pittock, also in the program, says the high end is for a 4.5 degree rise but points out that recent evidence shows that the high end may be under estimated [see Note 3 below]. He says even with a two or three degree rise inland it reach 5, 6 or 7 degrees.
“Based on interviews with respected scientists who have produced peer reviewed papers on the subject and the IPCC’s projections, Four Corners said the increase in warming could be ‘as much as four degrees’ [see Note 4 below]. This figure is not at the highest end of estimates and is not presented as inevitable” [see Note 5 below].
Note 1. But the ABC said this warming was expected by 2050, not 2100.
Note 2. The changes to which Dr. Pearman refers are for 2100, not 2050, and they are not from ‘a very solid set of science’: they are from flawed and highly contested projections of future emissions.
Note 3. Once again, Dr Pittock’s reference is to projections for 2100, not 2050, and there is other recent evidence that the high end may be OVER estimated (e.g. Hansen et al (2005) projects warming of from 1.1 degrees by 2100 from the IPCC B1 scenario to 2.7 degrees from the IPCC A2 scenario, which are, respectively, near the bottom and the top of the IPCC range).
Note 4. The ABC’s statement implies that four degrees increase was ‘EXPECTED’ by 2050, not that the warming ‘could be’ of this order. No ‘respected scientist’ believes this.
Note 5. The figure, presented as relating to the year 2050, is far higher than the highest PROJECTION. It is true that the figure was not presented as ‘inevitable’, but it was presented as an EXPECTATION. This is doubly misleading.
Ian Castles
Four Corners used to be compulsory watching, but lately it’s become something of a joke, especially in specialist areas.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too tough on the interviewer – when you’re a non-scientist, and possibly didn’t even do physics, chemistry or advanced maths to senior, how are you going to work out who’s up who when it’s often difficult enough for people with PhDs after their name to do so?
I agree that we shouldn’t be too tough on the interviewer, but the letter in response to my complaint didn’t come from the interviewer (who was of course named on the program). It came from the Senior Liaison Officer, Audience and Consumer Affairs. I deliberately didn’t name her in my post because she’s probably a non-scientist too.
Yet it’s the ABC that proclaimed that Australians aren’t being told the whole truth about global warming, and made serious allegations against other organisations. But they rely on a non-expert to produce “the whole truth”, and another non-expert to investigate complaints that they haven’t succeeded.
In my letter of complaint, I specifically asked “What is the source of Janine Cohen’s statement…?” I didn’t get an answer, or any real understanding that I had a complaint that was worthy of investigation.
I don’t blame the Senior Liaison Officer, I blame the organisation (and I speak as someone who’s publicly defended the ABC in the past).
I believe that one of the reasons why it’s extremely difficult for lay people such as ABC interviewers or complaints investigators to get the ‘whole truth’ on the state of climate change science is that climate modellers seem to be resistant to setting down their parameters, assumptions and conclusions in ways that would enable the (large) differences between them to be exposed and explored.
For example, after I drew attention to Garth Paltridge’s suggestion that the feedbacks in various models be calculated, the reactions ranged from saying that the proposal itself revealed a misunderstanding of climate models to Dr. Gavin Schmidt’s statement that it could quite easily be done. It’s just that no-one seems to have actually done it.
In the online discussion after ‘The Greenhouse Mafia’ program, Graeme Pearman said:
“CSIRO can contribute to the education of Australians – a scientific literate community, a truly clever country. CSIRO can contribute to policy development such as an issue like climate change… CSIRO can solve problems and create opportunities. And, dare I mention, on the way, CSIRO can advance knowledge.”
Well yes, and dare I mention that CSIRO can (and did) say that the Castles and Henderson critique of the IPCC emissions scenarios had been reviewed and rebutted by experts, the experts being 15 of the authors of the report in which the scenarios had been published in the first place. Many others don’t agree.
The transcript of Janine Cohen’s interview with Dr. Graeme Pearman reports Graeme as saying:
“The kinds of expectations from what is now a very solid set of science is that we could have several degrees change in temperature this century as possibly as much as five degrees but certainly, ALMOST CERTAIN WE ARE GOING TO GET AT LEAST A COUPLE OF DEGREES WARMING SIMPLY BECAUSE OF WHAT WE’VE ALREADY DONE in terms of change in the composition of the atmosphere AND ALSO BECAUSE WE CAN’T STOP DOING WHAT WE’RE DOING OVERNIGHT’ (EMPHASES added).
Dr. Pearman may think this 2 degrees warming is ‘almost certain’, but Dr. James Hansen and 46 colleagues estimate the warming in this century arising from the IPCC B1 scenario at 1.1 degrees. They don’t give their estimate for the eventual warming under this scenario (i.e., including warming after 2100) but this would probably be of the order of 1.5 degrees. So the Hansen et al projection can’t be reconciled with the Pearman statement that a 2 degrees warming is already virtually committed.
The B1 scenario certainly doesn’t assume that we’ll stop doing what we’re doing overnight. It assumes that global fossil CO2 emissions will rise by 63% between 2000 and 2030. This is a GREATER increase up to 2030 than that currently projected under the Reference Scenario of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which gathers information from all over the world on the plans of electricity and gas supply authorities, countries’ policies, etc.
The IEA Reference Scenario ‘represents a baseline or business-as-usual vision of how energy markets could evolve in the absence of new government policy initiatives’, and is ‘derived from exogenous assumptions about macroeconomic conditions, population growth, energy prices and technology.. It takes account of those government policies and measures.. that have already been enacted or adopted.. The Reference Scenario does not include possible, potential or even likely future policy initiatives. Major new energy-policy initiatives will inevitably be implemented during the projection period, but it is impossible to know today which measures will eventually be adopted and how they will be implemented.’
The IEA estimates that the energy supply projections underlying the Reference Scenario CO2 projections will require a cumulative infrastructure investment of $17 trillion (in year-2004 dollars) over 2004-30.
There is obviously a large difference between, on the one hand, IEA/Hansen (though Hansen et al don’t cite the IEA) and on the other, Pearman.
But how does the difference arise? Differing assumptions about emissions? Emissions of what? Differing effective climate sensitivity, arising from different assumptions about feedbacks? Which feedbacks? We simply don’t know.
For a matter of such importance, and with the IPCC boasting of the cast of thousands involved in its work, it seems to me to be extraordinary that it’s impossible to get answers to these elementary questions.
Ahem
The facts that the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is logarithmic, and that it has not been increasing exponentially, are brought out in the well-documented critique of the scientific sections of the UK Stern Review by the Australian Lavoisier Group (available online at the Lavoisier web site (“Latest at Lavoisier”, 19 March) and on the Stern Review website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_responses2.cfm .
Ian, any relationship that is logarithmic must be increasing exponentially by definition.
Cheers
I may add one comment here: the earth’s surface is 70% ocean/liquid, so the CO2 concentration is CO2 Ocean.
Not CO2 land(humans).
Scientically we are in no mans land, so we geologists would be quite happy to be told we know nothing, from our peers but will strenously resist any comment that we are ignorant from students of pyschology 101. Despite their well-intended intentions.
Louis, I intended to repeat the propositions in the NSW Parliamentary Legislative Reference service document, as reported by Graham, that ‘as a matter of physics the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic’ but that ‘IN FACT CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially’ (EMPHASES added).
I haven’t checked on the words in the NSW document, but I think the meaning is clear enough.
Ian,
Explanation accepted.
Amazing what the media report the bearpit states. And we elect them!
Cheers
Louis
Ian and Graham- “as a matter of physics the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic’ but that ‘IN FACT CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially'”
There is only one problem with this and it is detailed in an answer to a question on RC.
“My question is does this happen because the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, or would a smaller amount of carbon dioxide have a larger effect than on Earth if the atmosphere on Venus had the same mass but was mostly (say) nitrogen? In other words is it the density of carbon dioxide, or simply atmospheric pressure?
[Response: These are very interesting questions. Actually, the logarithmic behavior of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere only applies over a limited (but rather extensive) range of concentrations. At very low concentrations (say, around 1 ppm) bands are unsaturated and OLR becomes more sensitive to CO2 than in the logarithmic range. At sufficiently high concentrations (say, when you start to get around 10% or 20% of CO2 in the atmosphere) the absorption starts to be dominated by weak bands that have a different probability distribution than the bands that dominate in the present climate; this again starts to lead to an increase in sensitivity. Radiative transfer is complicated because of the complex line structure of greenhouse gases, but for a long time I have been looking for a simple, accessible explanation of the typical logarithmic behavior. I’m writing that section of my climate book now (check Chapter 4 of The Climate Book in a few months). As far as I can tell, the simplest way to put it is like this: CO2 opacity for the present Earth is dominated by the 15 micron band group. The envelope of the absorption strength in this group tails off roughly exponentially from the center of the group, once the lines are broad enough to overlap significantly within each sub-band of the interval, and the resulting probability distribution of absorption can be shown to give rise to the logarithmic behavior. However, the exponential envelope is only approximate, and only extends a certain distance out from 15 microns, so once you put in enough CO2 you get out of the logarithmic range. Hence the answer to your question, roughly, is that it depends both on pressure/temperature broadening and on CO2 concentration. To get a logarithmic behavior, you need enough pressure or temperature to make the lines broad enough to start overlapping, but if you put in too much CO2, you make the overall width of the principal absorption region (that’s not the line width!) wide enough that you get out into a different shape of envelope, and lose the logarithmic behavior. Play around with Dave Archer’s online Modtran model to get a feel for this. On Venus, the main issue is that, with so much CO2 around in the atmosphere, a lot of weak bands that are inconsequential on Earth become dominant in determining the changes in OLR. I haven’t done the calculation, but I’m guessing that a 90 bar N2 atmosphere with a millibar or so of CO2 in it would still be in the logarithmic range, since the pressure broadening would just put each of the sub-bands of the 15 micron group into the strongly overlapping regime; I don’t see that this would too much affect the overall envelope of the group, or the importance of the far outlier bands. –raypierre]”
With the concentrations of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere the behaviour is not logarithmic.
Ian,
referring to my previous comment – while CO2 vs T is logarithmic, the following phrase, “that it has not been rising exponentially” refers to what? Temperature? Or CO2?
While the relationship CO2 to T is logarithmic, then whether CO2 or T is not increasing logarithmically is neither here nor there.
I suspect a logical fallacy lurking here.
And as Ender has shown, it is not linear either.
And as CO2 cannot be approximated by linear or logarithmic functions, then it cannot be modelled period.
Random functions, strictly speaking, cannot be modelled, by definition.
Ender
Your extensive quote above is from Realclimate?
That has to be one of the most internally contradictory bits of scientific waffle I have ever encountered.
Who wrote it? It is well worth analysing for its grammatical and logical errors. The number of non sequitors in it beggars belief.
“CO2 opacity for the present earth” etc. Huh?
It is best described as post-modernist science.
Ender, ray-pierre is saying that at VERY LOW concentrations (say 1 ppm) and VERY HIGH concentrations (10% to 20% = 100000-200000 ppm), CO2 ‘behaviour’ (presumably with respect to temperature) is not logarithmic.
But in all ranges relevant to the current debate about global warming, the relationship IS assumed to be logarithmic. That’s shown by the fact that climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrium temperature change arising from a DOUBLING in CO2 concentrations: it’s assumed to be the same whether the increase is from 270-540 ppm or from 380-760 ppm or from 540 to 1080 ppm.
Or, putting the point the other way round, the equilibrium temperature response from a given absolute increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (say of 2 ppm per year) is less if the start-point is 380 ppm than 280 ppm.
Louis, the point of the relevant secion of the Lavoisier submission was that the rate of growth of GHG concentrations was now much lower than 20 years ago (and that the reader of the Stern review papers wouldn’t realise this). Over this timespan, the difference between a constant logarithmic increase (e.g. of 0.5% per annum) or a constant arithmetic increase (e.g. of 2 ppm per annum) would be too small to detect in a noisy series.
Louis – “And as CO2 cannot be approximated by linear or logarithmic functions, then it cannot be modelled period.”
Do you actually know what a logarithmic function is?
Ian – “But in all ranges relevant to the current debate about global warming, the relationship IS assumed to be logarithmic. That’s shown by the fact that climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrium temperature change arising from a DOUBLING in CO2 concentrations:”
Yes Ian that is exactly right so why would you expect the temperature to increase exponetially as you quoted here “but that ‘IN FACT CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially”.
Also in the lower concentrations the log curve is quite linear. It is only when the concentration becomes greater does the logarithmic behaviour become significant.
You have also mixed 2 different things here. Temperature rise and climate sensitivity are seperate things. You can do an experiment as work out the relationship between heat retention and temperature rise plotted against CO2 concentration and presumably get a logarithmic relationship. However climate sensitivity is not a clear cut relationship and it cannot be experimented directly because we do not have a spare model Earth to change things on.
Climate sensitivity is guessed from GCM experiments and looking at past records and is quite different from basic temperature rise. Again searching the literature for “CO2 temperature rise logarithmic” produces masses of hits of skeptic websites. It seems that this is a classic zombie to try to debunk AGW. It stems from lack of understanding of the science. I think it even made it to Tim’s Global Warming Bingo.
Ender, The IPCC defines climate sensitivity as ‘the equilibrium change in global mean surface TEMPERATURE following a DOUBLING of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration’ (EMPHASES added).
That’s the expression of a logarithmic relationship, as is illustrated clearly in Figure 9.1 of the WGI Contribution to the TAR, at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-1.htm . Note that the modelled equilibrium temperature change from a quadrupling of CO2 is exactly TWICE (not four times) the equilibrium change from a doubling of CO2.
If you don’t accept this, you’re the sceptic, not me.
Ian – So lets go back to your original reference.
“as a matter of physics the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic’ but that ‘IN FACT CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially’ (EMPHASES added).”
So what does this mean. It mentions temperature. Normally taken this means an experiment where CO2 gas is mixed in a chamber and the heat retention properties are measured and plotted.
Now you throw in another concept and are making the mistake of thinking that they are the same. The key word is in spaced capitals.
“the equilibrium C H A N G E in global mean surface TEMPERATURE following a DOUBLING of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration'”
Climate sensitivity is expressed in delta T for a doubling of CO2 so it is by definition, not physics, a logarithmic relationship. It is like the dB scale for sound or the Richter scale for earthquakes. Climate sensitivity is a measurement scale that climate scientists use.
So you need to work out whether your original statement was the physical relationship between CO2 concentration and heat retention or the physical measurement unit of climate sensitivity.
Ender, As I’ve already explained, it wasn’t my statement. However, as you tell me that I need to work out what the statement was about, I’ve now looked up the NSW Report to find the context. It says:
‘Climate models do have some ‘core beliefs’. One.. is that the response of TEMPERATURE to increments of carbon dioxide is logarithmic – meaning that it begins to damp off as concentrations increase. That means that the first increments of carbon dioxide create the greatest warming. All climate models also assume that the growth rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is exponential, at 1% per year, meaning that it is going into the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates’ (EMPHASIS added).
As you see, this statement mentions ‘temperature’, but it doesn’t go on to refer to what you say this is ‘normally taken’ to mean (‘an experiment where CO2 gas is mixed in a chamber and the heat retention properties are measured and plotted’). As I expected, it refers to the modelled response of temperature to exponentially increasing quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So I didn’t ‘throw in another concept’ – you did.
Ian – “Louis, I intended to repeat the propositions in the NSW Parliamentary Legislative Reference service document, as reported by Graham, that ‘as a matter of physics the RELATIONSHIP between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic’ but that ‘IN FACT CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially’ (EMPHASES added).
I haven’t checked on the words in the NSW document, but I think the meaning is clear enough. ”
This is what you said. Again what are you or Graham saying? You need to complete the sentence because to me the meaning is not clear.
“IN FACT CO2 hasn’t been increasing exponentially” so therefore??????????? – complete this someone.
Hansen et al (2005) put it this way:
‘Observed global warming, as well as the global warming in the model driven by all forcings, has been nearly constant at almost 0.15 deg C over the past 3-4 decades.. This high warming rate is maintained in the most recent decade despite a slowdown in the growth rate of climate forcing by well-mixed GHGs.. The warming rate in the model is maintained because, by assumption, tropospheric aerosols stop increasing in 1990. Prior to 1990 increasing aerosols partially counterbalanced the large growth rate of positive forcing by GHGs.’
In the scenarios that Hansen et al erroneously characterise as ‘Business-as-Usual’, the growth rate of climate forcing from well-mixed GHGs accelerates. But, as I’ve pointed out in earlier postings, under the more realistic emissions scenarios the growth rate of climate forcing decelerates and the projected change in temperature slows.
A continuation of the average 1.7 ppm rise in CO2 concentrations experienced during the past decade for some decades, which I think you canvassed as a possibility on an earlier thread, implies a slowing in the RATE OF GROWTH of these concentrations and therefore, cet. par, slower absolute rises in temperatures. The key point is that for the LINEAR rise in temperatures to be maintained, the models require that the ABSOLUTE growth in forcing must accelerate.
Ian – “I’ve pointed out in earlier postings, under the more realistic emissions scenarios the growth rate of climate forcing decelerates and the projected change in temperature slows.”
You are forgetting the hystersis of the oceans. We are not seeing the warming yet. Even if we lowered emissions today to what you describe are more realistic levels, warming could still accelerate for many years before eventually slowing. Because we have delayed action for so long global temperatures could, even though we reduce emissions, continue to rise past the danger point where climate change is inevitable.
You can read this blog post if you like:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2006/05/bigsystem_hyste.htm
or
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/93.html
Ender,
What raypierre states on realclimate is that absorption is logarithmic in the range that is valid for current atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
(at least for the range 100-1000 ppm).
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/arrhvsmodtran.gif
The logarithmic nature is confirmed by laboratory measurements (Arrhenius, 1901), calculated using detailed spectra (Myhre, 1998) and can be calculated online using detailed spectra in modtran http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
The rise in atmospheric CO2 was linear in the last 50 years, so the increase in absorption was logarithmic.
The heavy emission SRES scenarios A2 and A1FI assume an exponential increase, but Ian Castles undoubtably can tell you a lot about the unrealistic assumptions that are put in these scenarios.
Ian – “under the more realistic emissions scenarios the growth rate of climate forcing decelerates and the projected change in temperature slows.”
Again you are forgetting here that even if more realistic scenrios involve a reduction in the absolute amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere the temperature rise will not slow for many years after the CO2 is reduced.
“which I think you canvassed as a possibility on an earlier thread, implies a slowing in the RATE OF GROWTH of these concentrations and therefore, cet. par, slower absolute rises in temperatures.”
In previous threads you tried to say that a fall in PER CAPITA emissions will means that the summed amount of the individual contributions will also fall which is a fallacy. Per capita falls in emissions is only an artifact of population rising faster than emissions.
Confusing per capita emissions and absolute amounts in only adding the the misinformation of you trying to equate climate sensitivity with the physics of CO2.
Absolute growth in emissions is perfectly possible even though per capita emissions falls. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a measurement from calibrated instruments that can be compared to last year directly without the need for any calculations. Per capita emissions depends on dividing the emissions for the year by the estimated population. Simply overstating the estimate of world population can lead to falls in per capita emissions when no such fall has taken place. Per capita emissions may be OK for economics however in estimating the effects of CO2 induced warming on climate it has no place and is totally without meaning.
Of course the projections of warming must be based on TOTAL emissions, and not just of CO2 but of all GHGs and aerosols.
Of course the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a measurement from calibrated instruments that can be compared to last year directly, but unfortunately there are no instruments that can measure in 2006 what the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be in 2100.
Of course it would be totally without meaning to estimate the effects of CO2 induced warming from per capita emissions of CO2. I’ve never said, suggested or ‘tried to say’ that per capita emissions could be used in any such assessment.
The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios provides projections of TOTAL emissions of all of the main GHGs and aerosols for 35 scenarios, and the IPCC Working Group I’s projected range of temperature increase of 1.4-5.8 C between 1990 and 2100 made use of all of this information.
Have you ever looked at the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Ender? It’s a document of 600 pages. You really should read it before charging me with providing ‘misinformation.’
Ian – “I’ve never said, suggested or ‘tried to say’ that per capita emissions could be used in any such assessment.”
So what information are you basing the belief that a more realistic scenerio of future greenhouse emissions involves a reduction?
Kyoto only will give a reduction in total emissions of about 5% – not enough to make a dent. There are no other agreements in place with any enforceable targets for emission reduction. So why do you think it is more realistic that emission growth will slow in the future?
In a previous thread I did in fact take exception to you implying, maybe by omission, that a per capita fall in emissions equated to an absolute reduction. I can dig out the reference if you like however it will take some searching through Jennifers archive for the exact posting.
“So what information are you basing the belief that a more realistic scenerio of future greenhouse emissions involves a reduction?”
The information in the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, which projects that TOTAL emissions of fossil CO2 in 2100 will be less than in 2000 under six of the 35 scenarios used by the IPCC to project the 1.4 to 5.8 C temperature increase: A1T MESSAGE, B1 AIM, B1 ASF, B1 IMAGE, B1 MESSAGE, B1T MESSAGE and B1 HIGH MESSAGE.
Five of these seven scenarios project HIGHER levels of fossil CO2 emissions in 2030 than the International Energy Agency’s Reference Scenario published in 2005, which is based on existing policies and makes no allowance for new policies even if the IEA considers them likely to be adopted.
“There are no other agreements in place with any enforceable targets for emission reduction. So why do you think it is more realistic that emission growth will slow in the future?” As noted, a number of the IPCC emissions scenarios project reductions of emissions in the future. None of the scenarios assume Kyoto or any other agreements for emission reduction. I’ve explained why I think the lower IPCC scenarios are more realistic.
Perhaps you should read the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios as I suggested, and then consider why you think the 7 IPCC projections listed above are unrealistic.
Ian – I realise that you are pretty stuck on scenerios however how about you get out from under them and think about the real world.
I did not ask you about scenerios other than what real world intiatives are in place to achieve the reduction in greenhouse emissions that you consider most realistic.
As I’ve already pointed out several times, the best estimate of the International Energy Agency, which operates in the real world, is that CO2 emissions from fuel combustion will be lower in 2030 than is projected in any of the six of the IPCC illustrative emissions scenarios.
The lower-than-projected emissions are estimated on the basis of real world initiatives that are already in place, and the projections do not include the effects of any policies not yet in place even if they are considered likely.
The IEA estimates that the additional energy infrastructure necessary between 2004 and 2030, in order to achieve its scenario, would cost $17 trillion in 2004 prices. Under the IPCC scenarios, the increase in electricity use between 2000 and 2030 is projected to be two to three times as great as under the IEA’s scenarios.
In the real world, this can only be achieved if the power capacity that is constructed is enormously greater than presently planned. That won’t happen unless the supply authorities believe they’ll be able to sell all of that power, which apparently they don’t.
And even if they did, there’d be then the question of how they’ll build all that additional capacity to produce and distribute power.
There would be huge implications for the demand for engineers and other skilled workers, and for expansion in post-secondary education systems to train the greatly increased numbers of skilled workers required.
This isn’t happening. What is happening at the global level, however, is an enormous program of research and development into improving energy efficiency, development of alternative energy sources, etc.
I believe that it is realistic to expect that the result will be substantial reductions in emissions later in the century, in accordance with projections by the IPCC which only take account of energy technologies which had been demonstrated to function on a prototype scale before 2000.
That’s how emissions reductions will be effected Ender, not through programs of ‘enforceable’ targets. In the light of recent experiences with these discredited policies in the European Union and Canada, there are now better prospects for a more enlightened approach.
Ian – “is that CO2 emissions from fuel combustion will be lower in 2030 than is projected in any of the six of the IPCC illustrative emissions scenarios.”
However you have avoided the point that this level of emissions is still an increase from the level of today. I do not care about the IPCC scenerios nor does the earth’s atmosphere. You have to admit that from the IEA estimates emissions will higher than today which is contrary to your assertion that emissions will decrease.
“This isn’t happening. What is happening at the global level, however, is an enormous program of research and development into improving energy efficiency, development of alternative energy sources, etc.”
So where are your sources for this enormous program of research and development. We have seen in this country that wind farms that look bad are banned. The increase in the MRET was canned and coal confirmed as the main supplier of power for the future. Clean coal in unproven and at least 20 years away. I need more that your say so about these programs – without references it is a fallacy.
So consider this scenerio. Tomorrow there is general agreement amongst all countries of the world that we need to reduce emissions. All coal plants are slated to close with wind/solar/nuclear set to replace them. All countries agree to phase out IC cars in favour of alchohol PHEVs, BEVs and fuel cell cars. All countries agree to reduce energy use by 50% through efficiency gains.
Wind/solar can start ramping up within 2 years however even given the go ahead tomorrow the first nuclear plants even given a crash priority building program would start generating power in about 10 years even if the skilled people could be found to build more that about 100 at a time. In 30 or 40 years the last coal plant could be turned off. Also the coal plants use sequestration to minimise emissions while they are still operating. The car fleet would take around 20 years to change over.
Now this would reduce emissions in about 20 years to 60% or 70% or current levels however the temperature would STILL continue to rise for at least 30 years before falling.
Now do you consider that this is a realistic scenerio? I certainly don’t yet this is the only type that would reduce absolute greenhouse emissions by any meaningful degree over the next 30 years. I cannot think how you can say that it is realistic that the level of greenhouse emissions will fall.
The only way to stop greenhouse emissions (vis CO2) is to stop breathing.
Ender, when are you?
Louis – I will do it straight after you sunshine
Ender, You’ve explained that you don’t care about the IPCC scenarios. That’s your right. But if you want to find out why I think that it’s realistic that the level of greenhouse emissions will fall, you’ll need to study the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. It’s available online.
Ian – so basically you really have no idea what is behind your premise and advise me to read a report that you do not trust in any way and have spent many many posts trashing.
What makes you think I don’t trust the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios IN ANY WAY, Ender?
You’re quite wrong. I’ve repeatedly quoted with approval the statements by Professor Richard Tol that ‘The SRES modellers know a lot about the supply side of the energy system’ and that ‘If you are interested in energy supply the team that built the SRES scenarios are the dream team ..’
I’ve also praised the expertise in this area of Professor Nakicenovic, Coordinating Lead Author of the SRES, and of other SRES lead authors affiliated with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
In a posting to Climate Audit last year I said that “IIASA’s knowledge of the supply side of the energy system is evident in section 4.4.8 of the SRES (”Prospects for Future Energy Systems”)”, and that “The overview of the 20-odd selected energy technologies represented in IIASA’s MESSAGE model (see Box 4-9) is PARTICULARLY IMPRESSIVE” (EMPHASIS added).
I also said that ‘I defer to Professor Nakicenovic and Dr. Grubler in their understanding of technological possibilities, but IIASA’s track record does not justify their categorical dismissal of the criticisms of the socio-economic projections in the SRES.’
I haven’t spent many posts ‘trashing’ the SRES. Although I’ve made reasoned criticisms of the socio-economic projections of the report which have been widely supported by economists and national accounts statisticians, I’m more interested in the SRES scenarios than the Ender scenario – which is certainly not realistic, as you say yourself.
Ian – however you cannot post any references of technologies or agreements that are in place that have as their target strategies that will reduce emissions. You cannot post any examples of agreements involving multiple countries committed to reducing coal and/or electricity use or comitting in a meaningful way to eliminate transport emissions.
Clinging to scenerios that you have critisied, I withdraw the trashed statement, is not good enough to support your premise that emissions will reduce in the future. The SRES scenerios are only “what if” and are not intended to be references of what will happen. They are and always have been worst case/best case scenerios. NONE of them may come to pass. They are not support for the idea that emissions will reduce.
If you’d read the SRES, you’d have discovered that one of the “what ifs” FOR EVERY SCENARIO is “what if there are no target strategies that will reduce emissions.” The Report specifically states that “As required by the Terms of Reference, NONE of the scenarios in the set includes any future policies that explicitly address additional climate change initiatives.”
I could post one example of multiple countries committing themselves to reducing emissions. The evidence suggests that this approach has been ineffective in constraining emissions and may even have been counter-productive. After receiving evidence from many expert witnesses, the House of Lords Committee of Economic Affairs concluded that ‘The important issue is to wean the international negotiators away from excessive reliance on the “targets and penalties” approach embodied in Kyoto.’
You are correct that the SRES scenarios are “What ifs” and that none of them may come to pass. They have to be used with other information, which is what I have done.
But at least these IPCC scenarios, unlike the Ender emissions scenario, have been used as input to climate models.
So it’s useful to know that the B1 scenario, which projects an increase of 70% in fossil CO2 emissions in the first half of the century, results in an increase of temperature of just 1.1 C by 2100 according to the paper “Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS mofelE study” (Hansen et al, 2005, p. 23).
The B1 scenario does project a large reduction in emissions in the second half of the century but, as I say, this projection does not assume that multiple countries will commit themselves to emissions reductions.
Ian – your premise is that greenhouse emissions will reduce in the future. To support this premise you should supply information of mechanisms that are in place or going to be in place with measureable targets and/or commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions.
The only one with measurable enforcable targets is Kyoto which you deride. Due to the efforts of the US and Australia Kyoto was watered down to ineffectiveness. The CLean Air pact or whatever has no measurable targets, no timetables or anything that you can use as support for your premise.
Given the total lack of any concrete evidence to suggest the major emitters will commit to meaningful reductions in greenhouse emissions your premise is obviously false. Greenhouse emissions will continue to rise for the forseeable future unless the impossible happens and the Ender scenerio plays out and real reductions happens. I agree that this is about as likely as the Tasmanian Tiger being rediscovered.
Therefore your other statement that more realistic future scenerios involve emission reductions and global temperature falls is also unsupported by the evidence and also false.
Ender, You say that, in order to support my premise that greenhouse emissions will reduce in the future I ‘should supply information of mechanisms that are in place or going to be in place with measurable targets and/or commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions.’ You argue that, in the absence of evidence that major emitters will commit to meaningful reductions in greenhouse emissions, my premise is ‘obviously false.’
Why? I have just pointed out that the SRES authors were obliged by the Terms of Reference to ASSUME that no such mechanisms would be adopted and no such commitments would be accepted. They nonetheless produced seven scenarios which projected reductions in emissions of GHGs in the course of this century.
The scenarios were extensively reviewed both by 89 experts and by governments prior to IPCC approval and publication in 2000. If the premise underlying these scenarios (that emissions could be reduced without commitments to measurable enforceable targets) was ‘obviously false’, why do you suppose that none of the 89 experts and about 200 governments failed to point this out? Why would the 53 members of the writing team have acted on a premise that was ‘obviously false’ in the first place?
Ian – “Why? I have just pointed out that the SRES authors were obliged by the Terms of Reference to ASSUME that no such mechanisms would be adopted and no such commitments would be accepted.”
Because they are modelling “what if” cases. You are advancing a premise. You need to support it with evidence.
No Ender, you’ve advanced the premise that, unless major emitters commit to measurable enforceable targets, emissions of GHG emissions must rise.
Of course the SRES authors were modelling “what if” cases. And one of the “what ifs” was that major emitters do NOT commit to measuresble enforceable targets, or to any other policies that explicitly address climate change.
That’s what they were obliged to assume, and they still presented scenarios in which emissions declined in the course of the century. I’ve examined these scenarios in the light of other evidence including the IEA’s scenarios.
Despite your professed respect for experts and for the IPCC, you are claiming that 53 authors, 89 expert reviewers and around 200 governments are all wrong and that you, Ender, are right that emissions can only be reduced by the ‘command and control’ approach which the all-Party Lords Committee has unanimously rejected,
Ender,
Sunshine?
Ian – don’t try that one. Here is your statement.
“But, as I’ve pointed out in earlier postings, under the more realistic emissions scenarios the growth rate of climate forcing decelerates and the projected change in temperature slows.”
You consider emissions scenerios where the growth rate of climate forcings decrease. Which is a sneaky non-commital way of advancing the premise that the growth of greenhouse gases will decrease.
Either support the premise or withdraw it. Do not try to make out that I am the one advancing a premise.
I didn’t say I wasn’t advancing a premise Ender. Of course I advanced (and supported) the premise that the growth of greenhouse gases will decrease. I agree that the scenarios that project this outcome depend on assumptions that may not be realised. I’ve given my reasons for believing those assumptions to be realistic. There’s nothing sneaky or non-committal about it.
Ian – “Of course I advanced (and supported) the premise that the growth of greenhouse gases will decrease”
No you didn’t – thats why I am asking. How about you repost your supporting evidence because I must of missed it.
Ender, You told us that you didn’t care about the IPCC scenarios, but if you’ve now become interested you’ll find the projections of emissions of all of the major greenhouse gases for each of 40 scenarios, decade by decade from now to 2100, in the online version of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.
Then if you go to Appendix II of the WGI Contribution to the TAR (“Climate Change: The Scientific Basis”), you’ll find these projections repeated for each of six illustrative scenarios, together with the average of seven climate projections, decade by decade, for concentrations of GHGs, the resulting forcings and the resulting increases in temperature.
As I’ve also explained, none of the IPCC scenarios assumes the adoption of policies explicitly addressing climate change initiatives, such as enforceable targets for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.
The B1 marker scenario (B1 IMAGE) nevertheless projects reductions in emissions of these gases across the century, as do six other scenarios. Your premise that such reductions can only be achieved if enforceable targets are adopted therefore runs contrary to the findings of the IPCC experts.
You have repeatedly quoted your own projections in preference to the IPCC’s. For example, you told me that I was ‘forgetting here that even if more realistic scenrios involve a reduction in the absolute amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere the temperature rise will not slow for many years after the CO2 is reduced.’
But I wasn’t forgetting. I was relying on the projections in the tables in Appendix II of the WGI Contribution to the TAR and of the medium-term projections (to 2030) of the International Energy Agency. I believe that these are to be preferred to yours.
In my second para I referred to ‘the average of seven climate projections’: I should have said ‘the average of seven simple model results.’