Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Hmmm...

I wonder if a new vertical line will have to be drawn in there for the 2007-08 La Nina?

Morning Ricky,

I'm wondering how much data is available regarding the ozone saturation [perhaps saturation isn't the correct term] before and after volcanic erruptions in the past -- are some of the values in the graphs are reflective of a sort of "reverse-model" of those levels?

Wonder also about upper atmospheric chemical mix... I'd guess with spectrometry and/or XRD a general analysis of the various layers is done, but how can we compare and graph those changes from, say, 1900s?

Thanks for your blog ;o)

Where are the BTUs from the fuel that was burned that created the C02?

Buster,

Escaping into space...

Arctic sea ice next summer may shrink below the record low last year, according to a University of Washington climatologist. Ignatius Rigor spoke Monday at the Alaska Forum on the Environment and said global warming combined with natural cyclical changes likely will continue to push ice into the North Atlantic Ocean.


The last remnants of thick, old sea ice are dispersing and the unusual weather cycles that contributed to sea ice loss last year are continuing, he said.


"The buoys are streaming out," Rigor said, referring to the markers used to monitor the flushing of ice into the North Atlantic.


A similar pattern preceded sea ice loss last summer was not expected to continue so strongly.

New ice now covering the polar seas is not like older, thicker sea ice that once covered the region in winter, Rigor said. In 1989, 80 percent of the ice in the Arctic was at least 10 years old, he said. Today, only about 3 percent of the ice is that old.


New ice melts more quickly, and then open water absorbs more sunlight, warming the seas and making the fall freeze-up come even later, he said.

Scientists Monday said that the forecasts were, if anything, too cautious. None foresaw the shrinkage of 2007.
The shrinkage is related to higher temperatures, scientists said, but also to shifts in a weather pattern known as the Arctic oscillation. When the Arctic oscillation is in a "high" cycle, as it has been recently, more ice is pushed past Greenland into the North Atlantic, Rigor said.


Climate models have linked a higher Arctic oscillation to increases in greenhouse gases

"All these changes are very consistent with a climate system trying to cool itself off from greenhouse gases," Rigor said.

Information from: Anchorage Daily News: Link

that shows how the models are tuned for CO2. they do not represent and can not predict the natural variability of the system.

how can the natural forcing be constant? High clouds are increasing, low clouds are decreasing and water vapor is increasing (all of these fenomena cause warming)all starting in the late 1980s.
So it is very strange that the models do not show this imense positive forcing that those three parameters cause in global temperature.

That graph is useless unless one includes solar flux extending back for hundreds of years.

The solar forcing, although less now than in the 40's, 50's and 60's, is still at very high levels compared to 1750-1930.

An argument I always hear in regards to positive feedbacks is the loss of arctic sea-ice exposing water to sunlight that would otherwise be ice covered. This water is then able to absorb incoming insolation, heating it etc.

Well, wouldn't one then assume that incresed levels of insolation, however minute, in W/M2 over the previous 70 years as oppposed to the period of 1750-1930 would cause a long term heating of the oceans during that time period?

If the oceans are so efficient at trapping and storing heat, 70 years of higher TSI should in some way contribute to the warming of the upper 200 meters of the ocean.

Also, fo those who think the amount of CO2 is insignificant, consider than just 17 million tons of SO2 cooled global temperatures by half a degree (CO2 is in billions of tons, about 2,000 times more

I think that sums it up right there.

Perhaps CO2 isn't as an efficient of a GHG as we are all lead to believe it is.

Re #6:

"that shows how the models are tuned for CO2. they do not represent and can not predict the natural variability of the system."

The title of the first chart very clearly states "Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings." It is also very clear from the chart that the models are accounting for the effect of observed large volcanic eruptions in both cases.

As for your comments in the next post, one quick correction and the one comment. An effect from clouds would be a feedback - not a forcing - because it's a relationship dependent on the atmospheric system itself. For the comment, we're well aware that the behavior of clouds are poorly parameterized in climate models. This is where ceteris paribus comes in to play; the "natural forcings" included in the model are probably the status quo ones that act on the climate, namely weathering, volcanic outgassing, and solar forcing. Clouds are likely held as a constant, although I haven't gotten a chance to re-browse the Technical Summary and clarify this point.

In short, this model output is really persuasive in my opinion. Based on our current understanding of the situation and the mechanics involved, it seems pretty clear increased CO2 concentrations seem to be the culprit in our short term increase in global temperature.

Re #11:

It's not the most efficient GHG by any means. Doesn't mean it can't have a significant effect, though, if concentrations rise high enough.

Have they in any way modeled the effect of increased TSI over the previous 70 years and how the ocean would potentially absorb this increased insolation?

Anyone know of a paper or any kind of model that would have taken this factor into effect?

Imagine a World entirely sheathed in ice, its oceans smothered by a freezing white blanket nearly a mile thick. Vast glaciers creep across the continents. Nothing else moves. There are no clouds, save perhaps a handful of high wispy streaks made from frozen crystals of carbon dioxide. With the temperature a chilling 40 degrees below zero, only a few living things survive. Algae cling to the meager warmth of volcanic springs, and bacteria eke out a living around hot-water vents deep in the ocean. For millions of years, nothing changed.

If Earth was frozen solid, Computer models showed that the ice would have reflected sunlight back into space, keeping Earth's surface frozen forever.

That was earth around 600 million years ago… How did we get out of this mess ? greenhouse gas like CO2 is the answer…


Hundreds of millions of years ago, of course, there were no cars or factories releasing CO2 into the air, but there were volcanoes. Volcanoes perpetually belch carbon dioxide gas. Usually, rainwater washes volcanic CO2 out of the atmosphere. But on a frozen Earth, there would be no rain; instead of evaporating to form clouds, water would stay on the ground, cold and rock-solid. On a rainless Earth, CO2 from volcanoes would simply build up in the atmosphere until it trapped enough heat to melt the ice.

When Snowball Earth's ice melted, water vapor would have streamed back into the air. Water vapor is one of the most potent greenhouse gases there is; add it to the CO2 that had built up in the atmosphere, and you'd have temperatures skyrocketing to 40 or 50 °C (105 to 120 °F). "In a few hundred years, you went from the coldest climate the Earth has ever experienced to the warmest ever…

You can read all the details here.

Residence time of CO2 is 8 years

so clouds are not forcing...

In a clear sky 155 w/m2 radiation is trapped 60% (93 W/m2) is due to water vapor. 21% (32 W/m2) due to GHG.

In a cloudy day clouds hold 45%(70w/m2) water vapor 14% (22W/m2) and GHG 21%(32W/m2) of the radiation

It has been proven that clouds have a negative forcing on average (cools the earth). Never constant. Since the late 1980s clouds are changing as I said. That change is putting clouds forcing to positive on average.

Re #17:

It depends on how you frame the situation. Clouds changing as a result to a changing climate is, by definition, a feedback. Artificially changing the clouds to induce a climactic change is at first a forcing, but then becomes a feedback as the atmosphere attempts to equilibrate (involving altering the clouds).

Your math is not necessarily wrong, but extremely mis-representative of the situation in the atmosphere. The humidity (amount of water vapor) is so variable that we study the atmosphere under two cases - we look at separate equations for "dry" air than we do for "wet" air. You need to clarify how much water vapor is in the atmosphere before you tag a number to how much radiation is trapped due to water vapor. On a related note, you need to clarify what type of clouds you're working with as different clouds having different moisture contents (think about the decrease in saturation vapor pressure as a parcel of air rises through the atmosphere, due to lower pressure and lower temperature).

Finally, it has not been proven that clouds have a negative feedback on the warming climate. The closest I can think is that Roy Spencer or somehow has shown some high altitude clouds might have a cooling effect. In previous posts you've stated that we don't know what clouds do to the climate, so you can't just turn around a blog entry later and say that they exhibit any sort of feedback. We don't know all the complexities of the cloud feedback mechanism. This is the greatest aspect of GW Theory that keeps even supporters such as me wary of future developments.

In other words, it would be an incredibly important discovery if someone could quantify the cloud feedback in the atmosphere. It's not an easy thing to do, though.

I hate this rating system(the plus/minus sign), because people like crucilandia gets to feel the wrath of those who think that disagreeing w/man-made GW is a crime!

To those of you who hit the minus sign whenever someone disagrees with the man-made GW hoax, you should run for the ADMIN's job here on WUG, then you could ban all the "denialists"!

According to your definition, CO2 is also a feedback.

Man, you are lost!!

Where is the evidence that clouds are changing because of climate changing? It is a natural variability? Where is the long term data on cloud type and content?

Moist and dry clear days are averaged in a global scale. so we are isolating the effects of clouds and water vapor (of all Atm)

High clouds have a warming effect. they are ice and behave like glass.

Low clouds cool days and warm nights, and have high albedo, the net effect has been cauculated and those type of clouds have cooling effect.

Models do not know how to predict cloud behaviour. We know what clouds do to climate, we do not know what causes cloud variability.

Models mostly analyse what increasing CO2 does to everything else related to climate, this is a wrong start.

20) CO2 is not added by the atmosphere itself. It's added by humans. Ergo, it is a forcing.

21) The disregard for cloud physics burns my eyes!

22) Models use an extremely simplified cloud behavior; essentially, the models allow clouds to be either "on" or "off." It ain't the best scheme and needs a lot of work.

Models also do a lot more than just increasing CO2. Just today, I read a paper titled "Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo" which utilized the HadAM3 model, a climate model which helps us learn about radiative forcings in the climate.

Well, if Co2 makes up 1/10 of 1% of our atmosphere, I wonder how these models do so "wonderfully" at predicting the earth system when its hard enough predicting weather phenomena on much bigger scales....Models cant even get a 3 day forecast right, so how are man made GW scientists MORE SURE of something that is based on a model simulating 10-100 yrs????

The historic temperature record of the earth is so incomplete that there is NO WAY to effectively take out the biases....Especially when 70% of the earth is covered with water!!! You think the measurements were a problem over land??? They are MUCH worse over huge bodies of water....Bill Gray is smart in not going with this man-made GW joke...

Counters or Ricky or anyone really

Are climate model's projections considered scientific proof? Or do you consider them proof?,

BTW before you give me the 95% probability that the IPCC uses. I'm sure the computer probabilities that NASA uses for the space shuttles are at least that high before launch and re-entry, but we have lost two of them.

My question is simply, do you believe that climate model projections are scientific proof?

95% probability that the IPCC uses


The most ridiculous statement the IPCC COULD make!!!!!!!! Good points JER!

A while back Ricky had a couple blogs called 'absorbing' and 'reflecting'. In those blogs he posted these two images.








In the absorbtion diagram it is depicted that where absorbtion is most important is the upper few hundred meters of the ocean.

Since the oceans do a pretty efficient job at absorbing incoming solar insolation would it not be prudent to concentrate on how much more insolation the ocean absorb during times of increased TSI (modern maximum) than during times of decreased TSI (I'm not talking about Maunder/Dalton minimums, although they can be included since thery do happen, but a normal 75-100 sunspot maxima solar cycle.)

counters

physics of clouds is what the modelers do not understand themselves. The point is that you should retake your met101, that you took last year.

Study the effects of cloud types on climate or IR budget. start with google and move to webofscience.

Re #26:

Sebastian, I'm not a climate modeler just yet... it's one avenue that I'm seriously considering embarking upon, though. Still, I can answer your question for you: Models aren't considered "proof" as in "I put a spycam in the fridge to prove that it was my dad stealing the cheesecake." Proof is kind of a dirty word in science.

Calling models 'proof' would be a great bit of circular logic. We make assumptions to simplify the models, and then run the models based on those assumptions. From the perspective of the scientific method, those assumptions constitute a hypothesis. Then, the models can illustrate what might happen to the climate system based on those assumptions.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe the models are scientific proof. That's because they're not designed to be scientific proof. They're simply a tool that we can use to try to predict what will happen to the climate system. I like to think of the models as "prettified mathematics," because they're really just complicated equations. However, using the models helps us understand the climate and what can change it, and they help us verify our hypotheses on global climate change and what-not.

I hope I answered your question, if not, I'd be more than glad to try again.


Re #29:

Crucilandia, cloud physics isn't taught in an introductory meteorology course. For terseness' sake: cloud physics is complicated and convoluted. You can't claim that we don't understand clouds (like you have in comments on previous entries), then turn around and define their behavior (like you've tried to here) - especially if you're poorly or incorrectly defining their behavior.

"I'm not a climate modeler just yet... it's one avenue that I'm seriously considering embarking upon, though."

"...GW Theory that keeps even supporters such as me..."

Great, more climate modeling from bias sources...

So counters, let me ask you this, do you believe that AGW (meaning to a dangerous level) is a theory or a scientific fact? Knowing that fact is perhaps too strong a word, at least to the degree that science accepts, let's say continental drift.

I am saying that you should study basic meteorology, before you coment on cloud physics or effects of clouds on climate. Your statments previously are erroneous with mismatched citation.

most of the assumptions of models forecasting climate do not have their assumptions tested by laboratorial experiments.

we do understand clouds but we do not know what warming climate will do to the cloud system.

They're simply a tool that we can use to try to predict what will happen to the climate system. I like to think of the models as "prettified mathematics," because they're really just complicated equations.

counter, with any "tool" GARBAGE IN=GARBAGE OUT

It's that simple. It's also a common rule that as time increases, certainty DECREASES.

Several comments, so bear with me:

#31) Biased, definitely; I detest Fortran with a passion, so I'm heavily biased against climate models! I also phrased myself poorly... I should've stated that I am currently convinced that GW theory is strong science, not that I "support" it.

#32) I believe the assumptions are sound and that thus far the evidence seems to corroborate the theory. It's not as sound as plate tectonics, and more work is definitely necessary. I'll skip out the whole 'believe out of necessity or else we're all gonna die' and say it straight up: I have yet to come across a facet of the theory that made me stop dead and my tracks and re-evaluate its veraity.

#33) I'm not making a statement of the effects of clouds on climate. I'm making a statement about your understanding of the effects that clouds have on climate. If you're just going to keep ad hominem'ing me, though, then I'm not going to bother responding; Sebastian and Sullivan are at least having a scientific conversation with me.

#34) Just laughable. Do you really think science works that way?

#35) This one sentence is a paradox. We can't "understand clouds" if we don't "know what warming climate will do to them." We make assumptions to simplify their behavior.

#36) It is a common rule, and one that is extremely important for chaotic systems, albeit it is usually stated a bit differently. Your first statement is important though; we should definitely be talking about the assumptions rather than the models themselves. Models should and do change as our understanding and computing power increases; the assumptions are the fundamental variables deciding things, though.

Counters,

Well said.
However, GW theory is hardly strong science, at least the alarmist version of it. It would take hundreds, perhaps thousands of years to achieve the warming that some say will occur within the next 90 years.

The scare story of catastropic climate change due to CO2 should really shift to the scare story of nor being able to achieve sustainability within 90 years once fossil fuels run out. If the infrastructre for clean renewable energy isn't developed by the time fossils run out then we'll be faced with a much greater problem than any one that could be caused by the changing of climate, which is inevitable no matter which way the temperature goes.

Washington is trying to pass legislation that would tax people over their fuel driven cars....as you might guess, it isn't popular so it will be hard to pass...but goes to show how they plan to profit off of man-made GW....

oh and BTW, GW in itself is a chaotic system....

Well said, Sully! And, you're absolutely right!

But, let's spend several million on geoengineering, while we're at it, too! Let's just see how much we can really screw up the environment! Hey, it doesn't matter that we've got emissions - no, we can just shoot some chemical up in the air and ignite it!

It doesn't matter that we've got people that need feeding. Let's just add something else to the budget that we can't pay for now anytime in the near future! Not to mention, how important is it that while all this is going on, we've actually got Congress questioning Clemens over drug use in baseball - talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars! Why don't they hold hearings on Congressional accountability instead - seems that would make much more sense(cents=trillions)!

Let's double or triple a budget for that geo experiment! Let's just leave science uninhibited to do as they wish while scaring the hell out of us at the same time!

Rant over!!!

My girlfriend and I were talking about that earlier (the Clemens deal). I thought congress passed laws, not acted as prosecuters of the public? Who knows...

Indeed a waste of money and resources. Perhaps if that money was spent building a wind farm, improving the efficiency of solar panels or a methane capture system at a landfill etc...

ok no ad hominem you. just facts.

GW is a money machine, taxes for carbon go to other purposes.

Several countries in EU are taxing everything that makes CO2. So just wait, thanks to Al, we will be paying taxes per bag of coal etc.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N23/C1.jsp

Why worry about Global Warming perhaps will starve first


The Associated Press

Cereal stockpiles are expected to hit their lowest level in over two decades, contributing to keeping their prices high, a U.N. food agency said.

The low stocks combined with continuously strong demand - also driven by the growing biofuels industry - to keep prices elevated, the Food and Agriculture Organization said in a report on the global food situation, which was being released Wednesday.

By the close of the current season, stocks are expected to fall to 405 million tons - down 22 million tons, or 5 percent, from the start of the season, the Rome-based agency said. It would be the lowest level since 1982.

The food-and-supply demand remains tight, despite an increase in cereal production in 2007 and favorable prospects in 2008, the agency said.

"We do not anticipate a major downturn in prices even if production rises, because the increase would have to take into account the lower stocks," said Abdolreza Abbassian, an agency official who was part of a team working on the report.

The report said that "it may require significant increases in production of more than one season's cereal crop for markets to regain their stability and for prices to decline significantly below the recent highs."

In recent years, food prices have soared amid rising oil prices - which have increased food shipping prices - and growing demands for biofuels.

Biofuels, made from corn, palm oil, sugar cane and other agricultural products, are seen by many as a cleaner and cheaper way to meet the world's soaring energy needs compared to greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels.

It is estimated that some 100 million tons of cereals are currently used for the production of biofuels, making this sector a leading source of demand, the report said. Of this figure, maize accounts for 95 million tons, representing 12 percent of its total world utilization.

In 2007-08, the United States is expected to put at least 81 million tons of maize into the production of ethanol, which would be up 32 million tons, or 37 percent, from the previous season.

World cereal trade is expected to hit a new record in the current 2007-08 season, approaching 258 million tons, mainly due to a surge in imports in maize and other cereals by the European Union, the report said.

source


Well then again while we are starving the poorest people in the world and causing the world's economy unnecessary inflation, let's also make the perceived problem worse



Converting native ecosystems for production of biofuel feed stocks is worsening the greenhouse gas emissions they are intended to mitigate, reports a pair of studies published in the journal Science. The studies follow a series of reports that have linked ethanol and biodiesel production to increased carbon dioxide emissions, destruction of biodiverse forest and savanna habitats, and air and water pollution.

Analyzing the lifecycle emissions from biofuels, the first study found that carbon released by converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands often far outweighs the carbon savings from biofuels. Conversion of peatland rainforests for oil palm plantations for example, incurs a "carbon debt" of 423 years in Indonesia and Malaysia, while the carbon emission from clearing Amazon rainforest for soybeans takes 319 years of renewable soy biodiesel before the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and mitigate global warming.

and

While a number of studies have shown that conversion of tropical ecosystems, including peat swamps in Southeast Asia and rainforests and grasslands in South America, for energy crops result in net emissions, the second study shows that when assessed at a global level, U.S. corn ethanol is also a major CO2 source — not a CO2 sink as usually claimed by the farm industry.

"Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gasses for 167 years," write the authors.

Their assessment is based on the additional land that needs to be converted abroad as a result of increased corn acreage planted for ethanol production in the United States.

entire article

So let's get this straight. Not only are we driving up the price of food around the world, which hurts the poorest the worst, we are making it more profitable for people, both mega corporations and poor farmers in third world countries to destroy known carbon sinks to produce bio-fuel crops. In addition we are taking more food crops out of the supply line causing not only food shortages and increased food prices, but an increase in green house gas emissions.


All this and much more based upon projections of climate models. Is this what they mean when they say we don't have time to wait? We must do something now to stave off global disaster? Yes indeed let's shoot sulfur into the atmosphere while literally thousands are dieing of record cold weather. God forbid they should cut down a tree to burn to save their children's lives, it would increase their carbon footprint. ridiculous

30. counters said: 8:56 PM CST on February 13, 2008

"Re #26:

We make assumptions to simplify the models, and then run the models based on those assumptions. From the perspective of the scientific method, those assumptions constitute a hypothesis. Then, the models can illustrate what might happen to the climate system based on those assumptions."

So you input simplfied static values to start the climate model, and expect them to accurately illustrate what MIGHT happen to the dynamic, chaotic climate.

And if it doesn't match next year, you tweak it again. Hopefully, the changes you made to the input still match the past.

Counters:

Let's "re-define" a part of your statement:

"From the perspective of the scientific method, those statements that are assumed to be true for the sake of argument (assumptions) constitute a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation (hypothesis)."

To me, this means the results of the models are a STARTING point for future research. The results of models ARE NOT FACTS.

Visually the matches look good between observations and models but what correlation work has been done to statistically compare the data?
For example in the lab where I work we analyze the calibration curves by using correlation coefficents and linear estimates, the slope of the line, the y-intercept, etc - I'm sure there must be similar work done by climatologists after they run the models? Does anyone have any references (I'm pressed for time again)?
Thanks.

Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell

Is this an oxymoron or just plain moronic.

Eh, I saw a similar story yesterday about the cold spell in Lebanon.

You know what they say...

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I guess that applies here. Global warming is supossed to trigger warmer winters and warmer nights.

Last year when Tokyo had a snowless winter it was global warming, but then when someplace not accustomed to getting snow gets some it's also global warming.

In reality, what thy're getting is called weather.

Another good analogy that applies beautifully here...

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get" - Robert A. Heinlein

#49 Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell

Another wonderful attention grabbing headline in the popular media. (That is their business-as-usual.)

Near the bottom of that article though,

Some experts have said the cold weather in China and Canada may be linked to La Nina, a sea-surface cooling pattern in the east Pacific, which leads to a warmer sea surface in the west Pacific near China and Asia.

"La Nina is causing warm moist air to move to the south of China," said Professor Yan Yuk- yee, who specializes in climatology at Hong Kong Baptist University. "When this meets the cold air of the monsoon, it causes freezing conditions."

It's surprising they included that but of course it was near the bottom. I predict with 95% certainty that "reporting" in the popular media will continue in this manner.

I'm really interested in seeing a scientific comparison of pre and post ~1970 variability though.