Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.
The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035” was “very high” if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.
It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.
East Rongbuk glacier just below Mt. Everest has lost 3-400 ft of ice in this area since 1921.
More generally, peer-review works to make the IPCC reports credible because many different eyes with different perspectives and knowledge look over the same text. This tends to make the resulting product reflect more than just the opinion of a single author. In this case, it appears that not enough people with relevant experience saw this text, or if they saw it, did not comment publicly. This might be related to the fact that this text was in the Working Group 2 report on impacts, which does not get the same amount of attention from the physical science community than does the higher profile WG 1 report (which is what people associated with RC generally look at). In WG1, the statements about continued glacier retreat are much more general and the rules on citation of non-peer reviewed literature was much more closely adhered to. However, in general, the science of climate impacts is less clear than the physical basis for climate change, and the literature is thinner, so there is necessarily more ambiguity in WG 2 statements.
In future reports (and the organisation for AR5 in 2013 is now underway), extra efforts will be needed to make sure that the links between WG1 and the other two reports are stronger, and that the physical science community should be encouraged to be more active in the other groups.
In summary, the measure of an organisation is not determined by the mere existence of errors, but in how it deals with them when they crop up. The current discussion about Himalayan glaciers is therefore a good opportunity for the IPCC to further improve their procedures and think more about what the IPCC should be doing in the times between the main reports.
Update: This backgrounder presented by Kargel et al AGU this December is the best summary of the current state of the Himalayas and the various sources of misinformation that are floating around. It covers this issue, the Raina report and the recent Lau et al paper.
Richard Ordway, I’ll make it easy for them …
Ian says of the latest nontroversy: “Is this true or is it just journalism? ”
I wouldln’t call it journalism unless you want to use REALLY loose standards for that once proud profession.
Agree the Himalayas episode is just one item out of a 1,000 page report. To err IS human. But I do find it disturbing that this same error was in part the basis for soliciting funding of $4M from EU taxpayers. And that the bulk of these funds went to none other than Pachauri’s TERI organization. Perhaps this is simple coincidence – but it looks not good on the record.
Ken, I think that perhaps some of the confusion arises from the fact that the IPCC is being asked to fulfill two roles here. First, they are to summarize the current state of the art of climate science–and I think most would agree that they do that well. However, they are also charged with developing at least the beginnings of risk models so that mitigation can be targeted properly. The thing is that to do risk modeling you have to first bound all the risks. The bound doesn’t have to be a tight bound–it merely has to exceed the actual risk and be finite. It can be tightened as more information is obtained. I think that the Amazon reference clearly falls into that category.
The one silver lining I can see in all this is that with people now concentrated on the risks, most seem to have moved beyond trying to challenged well established climate science.
> eight billion
Citing that to Lovelock?
Barton Paul Levenson,
A fact that we KNOW now is that there is about 300 million clinical cases of malaria every year and 1 million deaths. This can easily be prevented with a simple vaccine but yet we do nothing. We can spend trillions to save theoretical future deaths or millions to save people today.
779 Barton Paul Levenson: “BPL: SL-1. Enrico Fermi. Brown’s Ferry. Three-Mile Island. Chernobyl. Places like that.”
Three Mile Island resulted in ZERO injuries. Chernobyl killed 52, mostly fire fighters. That is NOT where people got their irrational ideas. What are SL-1 and Brown’s Ferry? Oh, right: Other non-events. Nothing happened there, but great propaganda was generated. Enrico Fermi was a scientist who was involved in the Manhattan that’s project. Bombs are NOT reactors. Reactors are NOT bombs. What does Enrico Fermi have to do with it? Did he say something irrational once?
Chernobyl was a primitive reactor without a containment building. There are 134 just like it still operating, but they have NOTHING to do with American reactors.
American reactors are:
1. Inside containment buildings which are pressure vessels
2. Are much more stable that Soviet built reactors. This applies even to the oldest American power reactors.
There has NEVER been a death or any injury attributable to American nuclear power. So you haven’t answered the question: Where, besides Propaganda, did Americans get their irrational fear?
794Richard Steckis: BPL is right in saying that AGW will probably cause billions of deaths. In fact, the human race could go EXTINCT. Nobody is “catastrophising” the issue. We have read some archaeology and some paleontology.
The #1 kill mechanism is famine. See “The Long Summer” by Brian Fagan and “Collapse” by Jared Diamond.
7 degrees C is one more than the for-sure extinction point for Homo Sapiens as reported in a bunch of reports and books.
The book “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas says: “If the global warming is 6 degrees centigrade, we humans go extinct.” See:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
Lynas lists several kill mechanisms, the most important being famine and methane fuel-air explosions. Other mechanisms include fire storms.
The following sources say H2S bubbling out of hot oceans is the final blow at 6 degrees C warming:
“Under a Green Sky” by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
http://www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=672
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1535
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2509.html
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
“Climate Code Red” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton says the following:
Long term warming, counting feedbacks, is a least twice the short term warming. 560 ppm CO2 gets us 6 degrees C or 10.8 degrees F. We will hit 560 ppm before mid century.
Per “Climate Code Red”, we need ZERO “Kyoto gas” emissions RIGHT NOW and we also need geo-engineering because we have already gone way beyond the safe CO2 level of 300 to 325 ppm. We are already at 455 ppm equivalent and we have tripped some very big tipping points. We aren’t dead yet, but the planet needs critical intensive care if we humans are to have a chance of survival.
“The Vanishing Face of Gaia” by James Lovelock has identified a 9 degree lurch in the temperature that happens at 450 ppm equivalent.
Looks like we are not going to make it. We HUMANS could be EXTINCT by 2050 because politicians are not considering sufficiently strong action.
Thank you, RealClimate, for this last-ditch effort to save us from extinction. All readers should forward RealClimate’s email to their politicians immediately and call their politicians in the morning.
My apologies. Looking back, I see that my attempt to condense that paragraph changed its nuance, especially ‘over’ instead of ‘up to’. I was in a rush and slightly distracted at the time. I should have just cut and pasted the passage. Here it is:
Again, my apologies for mistranslating the exact meaning of this paragraph.
However, I do stand by my point: that the source and the authors cited for this still alarming assertion are of questionable reliability.
#837 Ian: rather read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/27/climate-change-uk-top-scientist-urges-caution
BTW I get the feeling he is talking as a politician, not as as scientist… nothing he says is controversial within th scientific community. ‘Some scientists’ indeed. Nice way to accuse everybody and nobody :-(
Amazon controversy: I read somewhere that: The forest makes its own rain. The more you cut down, the less it rains.
And somewhere else that: If the Amazon region gets enough drier, the remainder will all burn at once in a firestorm. How much drier?
I don’t have the citations, so I suggest the Amazon thing as a future topic for RC to do a big post on. Don’t get hung up on 40% because that may be mooted by a fire storm. If the fire storm happens, we are all in trouble because it would release a lot of CO2.
This is not the first time Kevan Hashemi has shown up on these pages making strong claims. When dealing with people who are clearly more expert than you and you think they have made a mistake, try exercising a little humility against the possibility that the mistake is yours. No one here wants you to feel a fool.
“actually I doubt that anybody will see a statistically significant (above 3 sigmas of natural variability) change during his life.”
So again you’re only thinking of yourself.
anybody means anybody and not myself , right ?
do you know that people are born, live and dies, so in 100 years people will just live in the world they know.If nobody sees a statistical difference within their life , whythe hell would they care about the average throughout a century ?
As I said, europeans have settled in America although there were much more hurricanes there than in Europe. And you know , retired people from the North of France move often to the south where the temperature is much higher (several degrees) , and there may be more droughts and even fires- and I suspect some american go to Florida or california too. And they change their “climate” within a few months !! Do you think these people are so crazy ?
“same question : when?”
When the West Antarctic melts.
so when do you think it will melt and how much carbon does it require, please?
If you don’t care that it melts as long as you’re dead before then, then say so.
well, let’s say I care first the most imminent problems happening just right now, which is for me first the LACK of fossil energy, beginning with peak oil. And I doubt that the problems you fear will ever happen. So I don’t think my behavior is that odd, compared to the average one : handling immediate and certain issues , instead of distant and uncertain ones.
BPL: Not yet, but it should cause about eight billion sometime around 2040-2060.
any scientific, peer-reviewed reference for that, BPL ?
It seems that we are in the midst of a storm of denial, I suspect that it has been some time in planning. Again I suspect that there was warning of this storm in a suspicious comment on this site back in July:
https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-131786
Silvia is wrong of course, reality is against her. Sadly we are all losers for it, as it seems that nothing will be done until it becomes undeniable.
Thank goodness this site exists.
@Kevan Hashemi: Nor have I ever seen a graph of the number of stations plotted by GISS or CRU.
You mean this one?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/stations.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Seems to me that one of the 2 arguments posted by Gavin against my comment #25 on october 27 2009 to the post “350” is no longer valid… Himalayan glaciers will not change the flow of the Gange river in a near future for 2 reasons : first, water from glaciers represents only 2 to 3 % of the total Gange river flow. Second, melting is not what was forecasted…( So, if you asked Chinese or Indian people : “how much more CO2 do you think we should add to the atmosphere”, answer seems definitely far to be “none”). Remember Copenhague…
By the way – here is a quick analysis of losing ‘high altitude, high latitude’ stations.
It is quick – hopefully I haven’t munged it up too much.
The baseline is composed of 3188 GHCN RAW stations,
gridded and averaged per the CRU perl code released last month.
The first set shows the effect of removing all the stations 1000m and higher
http://rhinohide.cx/co2/crutem/img/ghcn_raw_all-1000-ghcn_raw_all-compare.png
http://rhinohide.cx/co2/crutem/img/ghcn_raw_all-1000-ghcn_raw_all-diff.png
The second set shows the effect of removing all the station above 60N and below 60S
http://rhinohide.cx/co2/crutem/img/ghcn_raw_all-60lat-ghcn_raw_all-compare.png
http://rhinohide.cx/co2/crutem/img/ghcn_raw_all-60lat-ghcn_raw_all-diff.png
I have a question regarding the lag time between peak temps and peak Co2. Is this true? I’ve heard that the peak co2 lags around 800 years behind peak temps in the last so many thousands of years in ice core data. This is an honest question- what’s that all about and how is it explained? thanks
[Response: Here. – gavin]
Giles, have you heard of AGW consequences being impossible as the cause of millions of deaths?
What do you think the consequences will be? Everyone gets beachfront property and live in a bahama-like resort chalet?
And have you heard of any AGW mitigation causing loss of economic output?
Richard Ordway:
You mean the Robert watson who said in 2000:
“The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is inevitable.”
“These are the fundamental conclusions, taken from already approved/accepted IPCC assessments, of a careful and objective analysis of all relevant scientific, technical and economic information by thousands of experts from the appropriate fields of science from academia, governments, industry and environmental organizations from around the world.”
?
Of whom it is reported:
“They say Washington disliked Dr Watson’s willingness to tell governments what he believes to be the unvarnished truth – that human activities are now contributing dangerously to climate change.”
and about his ejection from the IPCC:
“Green groups believe Mr Bush is unduly influenced by the energy lobby in America, and point to a memo forwarded to the White House by ExxonMobil last year.
The document raised the question of whether Dr Watson could be replaced as the US representative on the IPCC. Environmentalists claimed the outcome of Friday’s vote was proof of ExxonMobil’s power behind the scenes in Washington.”
Just in case someone thinks that any claim of Pachuri’s resignation isn’t any form of proof of the IPCC being incorrect or the WG reports being wrong.
Too many negatives in that closing sentence, wasn’t there…
“Ideally – though it might overload your work day – scientists need to (politely) call erring reporters and give them to facts.” – Theo Hopkins
If you really think that’s going to stop journalists either sensationalising, or promoting faux controversies, I have to wonder whether your date of birth was 26 January 2010.
#844 BPL: Not yet, but it should cause about eight billion sometime around 2040-2060.
Hmmmm….somehow I don’t think you meant to write that. Care to restate?
“Gilles: Have you ever heard of AGW consequences causing 100 millions deaths? no?
BPL: Not yet, but it should cause about eight billion sometime around 2040-2060.”
Not that I want to be perceived as crass or anything, but would not a dramatic population reduction have a buffering effect on AGW? A cite and review of the cite appears to be in order. If of course you have a peer or blog reviewed cite :)
I wrote:
“Falsify the hypothesis then. Just saying so doesn’t make it true. If you can’t falsify the argument that burning current reserves of coal will result in a “catastrophic scenario” with facts and figures then we’ll assume you understand the statement to be the truth.”
sorry Tim, I think you’re taking the argument quite upside down. The question is not if I can falsify it, it is if it can be falsifiedin any manner and how. If I can’t falsify it, just because it can’t be falsified anyway, then the statement itself is not scientific. That’s basic epistemology.
So how do you expect i COULD falsify it ?
Now concerning the current climatic problem, please let me know the last 30 years period when there was no climatic problem, I can’t remember any. I think mankind has always coped with climate , hasn’t it ? and don’t make me laugh with the “speed of change”, the world has totally changed in 100 years , and even in 50 years – but not because of climate change – and people moving more than 100 km to the south experience a much more rapid change than any natural or anthropic warming can do – not to speak about the great migrations overseas during the XIXth century.
Talking of disasters – when did humanity avoid a disaster, based on scientific warnings?
Has it ever happened?
How do we deal with avoiding the disasters that do happen?
Shouldn’t we be moving people (at least the poor ones) from quake-areas, flood-areas and the likes in any case?
Mitigating emissions won’t prevent millions to die from earthquakes, floods, storms etc.
Yes, more might die if we don’t mitigate CO2, but while we’re quarreling about how to do that – people keep dying for nothing.
Preventing settlements in “risky” areas will mitigate both “natural” disasters and “anthropogenic” disasters – won’t it?
Because we can be 99,9999…% sure that disaster will strike again and again, regardless of the atmospheric CO2.
I know this was yesterday’s news and probably completely forgotten by most, but I read the Telegraph article quoting Beddington. If you look at each of the actual quotes from Beddington, independently of the article, Beddington was saying something quite different from what the journalist was spinning.
Beddington, according to the actual quotes, said it is unchallengable that CO2 is causing warming, that scientists find it difficult to explain to the public what they mean by ‘uncertainty’, and that proper skeptics should have access to information even at the risk of people causing mischief with it etc.
The spin of the article was that the science is vague and probably won’t happen and that scientists are hiding data. A classic case of the mischief Beddington was talking about, with the journo relying on the gullibility and lack of critical thinking probably typical of readers of the Telegraph.
819 Bob says: 27 January 2010 at 1:19 PM
“…I used to think that some modern major news outlets had abandoned all journalistic integrity. Now I’m starting to think they all have. I’m starting to think that journalism is totally dead. It’s a time when it’s okay to just print whatever you want to believe as fact, knowing that most people will read it…”
————————————————————-
Take heart, Bob. At least The Guardian’s getting some balanced views into the news. Good old Guardian.
‘Climate sceptics distract us from the scientific realities of global warming’ by John Cook:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/27/climate-sceptics-global-warming
Arctic ‘Melt Season’ Is Growing Longer, New Research Demonstrates
http://www.physorg.com/news183836066.html
January 27, 2010 by Kathryn Hansen
New NASA-led research shows that the melt season for Arctic sea ice has lengthened by an average of 20 days over the span of 28 years, or 6.4 days per decade. The finding stems from scientists’ work to compile the first comprehensive record of melt onset and freeze-up dates — the “melt season” — for the entire Arctic.
The melt season begins each April when the sunless winter gives way to sunrise and spring, and water and air temperatures rise. By September, the sea ice shrinks to a minimum and begins refreezing, bringing the annual melt season to an end.
The longer melt season, described by Thorsten Markus of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., in the Journal of Geophysical Research — http://www.physorg.com/tags/journal+of+geophysical+research/ Oceans, has implications for the future of Arctic sea ice. Open water that appears earlier in the season absorbs more heat from the sun throughout summer, further warming the water and promoting more melting.
“This feedback process has always been present, yet with more extensive open water this feedback becomes even stronger and further boosts ice loss,” Markus said. “Melt is starting earlier, but the trend towards a later freeze-up is even stronger because of this feedback effect.”
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/1-arcticmeltse.jpg
Researchers analyzed satellite data for 10 different Arctic regions and found trends in melt and freeze onset days as well as trends in melt season length. Credit: NASA/Thorsten Markus
To examine melt season length, Markus and colleagues used data from satellite passive microwave sensors, which can “see” indications of melt. The result is an accurate account of the melt seasons from 1979 to 2007.
“Given that the Arctic ocean is nearly twice the size of the continental United States, it would be impossible to track change like this without long-term satellite records,” said Thomas Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington.
Analyzing melt-season trends for 10 different Arctic regions, the research team discovered that melt season lengthened the most — more than 10 days per decade — in Hudson Bay, the East Greenland Sea, the Laptev and East Siberian Seas, and the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Some of that change is due to melt onset occurring about three days earlier per decade in some areas. Earlier melt means more heat can be absorbed by the open water, promoting more melting and later freeze-up dates — more than eight days per decade later in some areas. Only the Sea of Okhotsk turned up a shorter melt season. The reasons for the regional differences are currently being investigated.
“The onset of melting and melt season length are important variables for understanding the Arctic climate system,” Markus added. “Given the recent large losses of the Arctic summer ice cover, it has become critical to investigate the causes of the decline and the consequences of its continued decline.”
The lengthened melt season could impact more than just the Arctic ice and ocean. According to Markus, “marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in melt onset and freeze-up dates.”
“Changes in the Arctic sea ice cover may have profound effects on North America’s climate,” said Wagner. “Studies like this one show us how ice responds to variations in the ocean and atmosphere and improve the predictive models that will help us plan for climate change.”
#844
“BPL: Not yet, but it should cause about eight billion sometime around 2040-2060.”
hey BPL – hyperbole much? i can’t believe you guys are still carrying this AGW torch. now let me try my turn at outrageous predictions – in 2 years this website will cease to exist or have a traffic volume somewhere close to a taco bell drivethru at 3:00 am.
Re 836 Tom says:
“Do you have a citation to back up all these billions of deaths attributable to lifestyles of others?”
It would be irresponsible for any peer-reviewed scientific document to state this in my experience and in my personal opinion.
I am stepping in on this conversation and did not start it vis a vis the peer review literature. I am not making this a case of applying it to the peer reviewed literature in any way, shape or form and hopefully never did…that would be irresponsible, I believe.
However, the closest I could imply from a peer reviewed perspective of the possiblility of billions of possible human deaths resulting from our burning oil, coal and gas (human-caused “global warming”) would be 188 citations citing the work of a retired former peer-reviewed publishing scientist’s work: “The Revenge of the Gaia” by James Lovelock (Lovelock, 2006).
Lovelock does indeed, in his published work bring up the terms “mass cull” and the possibility of billions of human deaths resulting from our current actions of burning oil, coal and gas causing anthropogenic climate change of which we humans might not be able to adapt fast enough.
The terms “billions of deaths” and “mass cull” are not necessarily at all endorsed by the 188 citations. However, elements of Lovelock, 2006 are taken seriously enough in documented world wide, juried peer reviewed literature to be cited, which is still telling.
I am not making a case that the terms “billions of deaths” and “mass cull” due to anthropogengic climate change are in the peer reviewed literature- only that a published source writing of this possiblility is cited 188 times. Many of the citations only discuss the implicatations of this point of view: eg. (IJ Fairchild, MJ Kennedy, 2007) and very few citations are from major journals.
Lovelock, 2006 is cited 188 times such as:
RV Short, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
2009 (They state Lovelock is a “world expert”)and “which the inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and Global Warming…”
M Hoffert, Science, 2009 “Can Civilization (at Least the U.K.)
Run Sustainably?” (mainly related to a book review)
J Hansen et al.,”Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 2006; (81 citations)
The study was coauthored (ahem) by someone we all know of well, concludes:
“These stark conclusions about the threat posed by global climate change and implications for fossil fuel use are not yet appreciated by essential governing bodies, as evidenced by on-going plans to build coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture and sequestration.
In our view, there is an acute need for science to inform society about the costs of failure to address global warming, because of a fundamental difference between the threat posed by climate change and most prior global threats.
In the nuclear standoff between the Soviet Union and United States, a crisis could be precipitated only by action of one of the parties. In contrast, the present threat to the planet and civilization, with the United States and China now the principal players, requires only inaction in the face of clear scientific evidence of the danger of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus scientists are faced with difficult choices between communication of scientific information to the public and focus on basic research, as there are inherent compromises in any specific balance.”
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:IixGBGhxTUIJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
List of the Hansen et al, 2006 co-authors
List of the Hansen et al, 2006 co-authors
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis1,, R. Miller,L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, G. A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer,E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto1, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen,A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall1, C. Jackman,J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N. Y. Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner,S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind,A. Romanou1, R. Schmunk, D. Shindel, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets,N. Tausnev D. Thresher, N. Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang
IJ Fairchild, MJ Kennedy, Journal of the Geological Society, 2007 (29 citations)
P O’Sullivan – The Holocene, 2008 (6 citations)
Back to the statement: The IPCC is not infallible. Ok, so perhaps we should back off a little from the statement: The science is settled.
That does not mean the problem does not exist. Those that care about it need to settle in for a longer campaign. Significant change in the way people do things will be slow, especially since acceptable alternatives seem to be missing.
I am looking for a theoretical model for the Greenhouse effect based on physical facts like spectroscopic absorption (IR-area from about 5 to 100 µm wavelength), like quantum mechanical models for absorption and (!) reemission, like turbulance in the troposphere, like what is the role of the stratosphere etc. etc.
If there is anybody knowing about that I would appreciate a knowledgeable answer.
Further information: the radioastronomers are using a theoretical model according to J.R.Pardo, but that seems to work only in the 1 – 2 THz area (equivalent to 150 to 300 µm)
infallible is a understatement..
Completely Fed Up (840) wrote:
“Then what do you say to those who proclaim that any action would ruin the economy?”
This is the thing that annoys me to no end, when it comes to the “skeptics”. They can ignore (or filter out, by finding tid-bits of disagreement) mountains of quality scientific evidence that AGW is a significant threat. Yet when it comes to the claim our economy will be destroyed if we do anything, they don’t seem to need any evidence to support that. And when actual economics evidence to the contrary comes out (e.g. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which warned of far worse economic damages if we don’t start acting) they simply ignore it.
Re: 830 SecularAnimist says:
27 January 2010
I wrote: “… I’ll be surprised if the human population of the Earth in fifty years is more than half what it is today …”
Considering the interactions of peak oil, climate change and agriculture you might find it interesting to see numbers regarding how dependent the food supply is on nitrogen fertilizer derived from fossil fuels.
“Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/
Some sort of External Links Disclaimer could be an answer to the IPCC’s problem with quotes and citations from grey literature.
See: Methane : Sources and Emissions:
Subject: Where does methane come from?
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
The commentary added a reference to IPCC, 2007 with a clickable graphic [exit disclaimer],
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/exitepa.htm
Seems the US EPA wants to make sure the IPCC citation is qualified:
“…EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by this link or any other linked site. Providing links to a non-EPA Web site does not constitute an endorsement by EPA or any of its employees of the sponsors of the site or the information or products presented on the site.”
#744, and GW-Hurricane link. It’s more complicated than simply average ocean temp increasing by a half degree (or more in the future), it has more to do with what Hansen calls “sloshings” — the changing distributions (and anomalies) of weather and SSTs.
I’m thinking if there is not enough warmth in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico for hurricanes in a particular season (maybe do to some Arctic oscillation thing, or la nina), then maybe there will be enough warm SST elsewhere for hurricanes (cyclones), like in the western Pacific or Bay of Bengal. But the hurricanes even there will only form if all the conditions for hurricanes are present, not just the warmer SST.
Warm SST is a necessary, but not a sufficient cause of hurricanes.
And an all around warmer ocean, I’d think, would just increase the potential for stronger (and perhaps more) hurricanes. Just sounds logical to me. Even with “sloshings” the (increasing) heat has got to show up somewhere.
As for a little ice age coming soon, I suppose that would be a near impossibility. In fact we are in a relative cool period right now with solar irradiance being at a minimum. So I’m thinking we’ll probably be seeing more warming than in the past decade when that ole sun starts shining brighter again. (Actual scientists welcome to jump in here.)
According to Hansen’s STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN, it seems there is little possibility now even for the regularly scheduled ice age, the one that may have come in 1000s of years (according to the pattern in the past), if it weren’t for AGW. And I believe it’s because of the GHGs we’ve already emitted — what’s already in the pipes — with what we continue to emit merely being superfluous nails on the coffin of that ice age.
RE Dr. Pachauri, I think he should get another Nobel Peace Prize for having to put up with denialists. And the Purple Heart, and the Medal of Honor, and the Medal of Valor, etc. etc.
The denialists may think they’ve won the war over global warming by finding all the i’s not dotted and t’s not crossed, but it’s a Pyrrhic victory.
Tim good comment.
One slight edit: it should be not 18 C, but 32 C, according to the NCDC FAQ you cited.
(14+ C to 18- C = 32 degrees.)
By the way, you’d think–or at least, I would–that Luna would provide a pretty good analog to a no-greenhouse Earth. But most online sources I’ve found give mean lunar temp as 220 K, compared to Earth’s 287. That’s a difference of 67 degrees, about twice the value given above in NCDC. Is that mostly due (as I suspect) to the planetary temperatures not being specified in the same way?
Ie., the lunar temp was specified as (IIRC) “mean effective equatorial” temperature; elsewhere–and a not-so-reliable elsewhere, as far as I could judge–it was stated that the “effective” temperature is always less than “actual” temperature. “Less” wasn’t quantified. . .
Any clarifications or comments from the qualified?
More on the current apparent temperature plateau:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/news.2010.42.html
The original is in Science, which probably requires that you pay a fee to read the whole thing.
844, Barton Paul Levenson: BPL: Not yet, but it should cause about eight billion sometime around 2040-2060.
We read it here first. Or is that from the peer-reviewed literature?
Tim Jones @ 841:
Oh, please. Cat5 hurricanes are their own worst enemy. Hurricanes are very fascinating, and the utter destruction they cause often a thing of perverse beauty. But the notion that Global Warming is going to cause some giant outbreak of Cat6 storms (!) ignores all of the things that make hurricanes actually work.
BPL @ 844:
That’s assuming we survive or avert the wars that are going to happen as a result of demand for crude oil outstripping supply.
But hey — global thermonuclear war could cause the Ice Age that denialists (who are also often in denial of Peak Oil) are so fond of talking about!
Here’s what I’ve been trying to say — for the public it doesn’t really matter whether the glaciers are melting sooner or later. See http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=149919 :
Frank Luntz, no less…
Jonathan Leake at the Sunday Times has discovered that the Information Commissioner believes that offences were committed under the Freedom of Information Act at CRU. As readers here know, the ICO is not able to take any action because there is apparently a six month time-bar on summary offences such as these.
I have to admit to getting very weary of this entire debate. Besides, 9 out of 10 times when I read a “sceptic” comment, around 100 million neurons undergo apoptosis in protest at the silliness of the argument they’ve just made (which originally began with a “Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 but it’s really cold, therefore CO2 cannot cause global warming” argument). I don’t have much time left.
A recent gem of wisdom I read yesterday? That glacial meltwater cannot possibly change sea levels anyway, as evidenced by the experiment of putting a ice cube in a glass of water and observing the relative constant water level as it melts. This was only just eclipsed today, by the following statement from a family member – and I quote: “I just heard on the radio (conservative talkback program) that a chief scientist has come out and said the global warming thing-a-me-jig in the whats-is-name was not accurate, and that’s why I know it’s all wrong.” Of course! It’s obvious when you understand the thing-a-me-jigs and whats-is-names.
And if I hear just one more sceptic say that a negative slope in a post-1998 temperature anomaly plot shows that global temperatures are dropping (even though the anomaly is still positive), I will completely decompensate.
Might as well be the first to force you to comment on this. Enjoy. How dreadful!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change
[Response: Well the headline is clearly dreadful, but the underlying paper is fine. – gavin]
Giles #752: That Gapfinder data visualisation tool is fantastic! It’s interesting to note the wide range of CO2 emissions intensities per capita that countries can have while still scoring high in the quality of life parameters (with the obvious exceptions of the many developing countries that score low on both axes). This is apparent for example if you plot life expectancy against emissions.
Many countries with half to a third the emissions per capita of the US or Australia do just as well for themselves. As technologies rapidly improve over the next few decades, and concern grows over the ever more apparent trajectory of global warming, many countries will no doubt drop emissions radically further while still maintaining standards of life. Those that don’t may be in dire trouble as fuel costs sky-rocket and they are out competed by more efficient nations
The issue that is becoming increasingly concerning is that, of course, whilst the IPCC is not infallible – no organisation is – the contiuous stream of revelations are just so worrying and embarassing. We need to accept that, for whatever reasons, there are a number of headlines that came out of AR4 that, frankly, are misleading. The Himalayan glacier story, the Amazon story, The Hockey Stick, the increased natural disaster events, etc, have been overblown and sensationalised sufficiently to allow the sceptics all of the room they need to make serious allegations of crying “wolf”.
Over on WUWT, TAV, etc they are having a field day as the stories unfold.
This is coupled with Dr Pachauri’s poor handling of the politics recently where he showed enormous niavety in the way he responded to the allegations with respect to the glacier 2035 subject. What was he thinking when he accused his critics of “voodoo Science” when he absolutely must have known that there were serious issues that were being detailed?
Heaven knows what is going to be uncovered next. There are obviously lots of people now checking all the references with respect to information sources. Already, it would appear that the WWF is a regular source of referenced material and that it is clear that the many of the authors of these reports have little or no credibility on the subjects that they have reported upon. Moreover, the IPCC have clearly not had the data peer reviewed (I hope, based on subsequent information) in many of the cases involving WWF.
Add in the CRU emails, the allegations with respect to financial conflicts of interest and the increasing scepticism in the press – and it is evident that the situation is getting out of control.
We need a new approach and new leadership at the IPCC. It is the only way that the panel can re-establish credibility.
It is my view that Dr Pachauri needs to resign and a new “terms of reference” is established for the IPCC. The IPCC is wide open to the charges that it has become a political campaigning organisation – rather than an independent scientific panel.
Obama on the “Consensus”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg