Archives for April 2008

Climate policy expert Roger Pielke Jr, climatologist Tom Wigley, and economist Christopher Green lay out in a commentary article published in Nature why they think that the emission scenarios the IPCC produced nearly a decade ago, which are still widely used, are overly optimistic. They note that most of the IPCC’s ‘business as usual’ emission scenarios assume a certain amount of ‘spontaneous’ technological change. The size of this assumed change is unrealistic, they argue, and deceives policy-makers and the public about the crucial role policy must have in encouraging the development of technologies to prevent dangerous climate change.

Read the Nature News article, ‘Climate challenge underestimated?’ Technology will not automatically come to our aid, experts warn.

The full paper is here (subscription required).

There is also correspondence from Gwyn Prins (of Prins and Rayner):

Radical rethink is needed on climate-change policy

Excerpt:

SIR — The irreconcilable differences
between David S. Reay’s Book Review of
The Hot Topic (Nature 452, 31; 2008) and
mine, expressed in Nature Reports Climate
Change (see www.nature.com/climate/
2008/0804/full/climate.2008.23.html),
go to the heart of why there is now a crisis
in climate policy. Reay seems to believe
that agreement with a normative agenda
precludes the need for rigorous evaluation
of evidence or of proposed policy actions,
and so falls into the same traps as Gabrielle
Walker and David King, the authors
whom he praises.

These authors have no doubt that the
Kyoto Protocol is the road to follow. They
consider that anyone, particularly an
American, who doesn’t agree is wrong —
and perhaps even corrupt.

However, the Kyoto approach is broken……..

IPCC Review Editors have an extremely important function under IPCC procedures. In prior discussion of the Replies by WG1 Chapter Authors to Review Comments, we noted their unresponsiveness on issues that we were familiar with e.g. the deletion of the inconvenient post-1960 Briffa reconstruction results, the handling of the HS dispute. When the IPCC WG1 (grudgingly) placed the WG1 Review Comments and Replies online- url here they did not place the Review Editor comments online, despite the importance of review editors. Through the diligent efforts of David Holland, the IPCC WG1 and WG2 Review Editor comments have now been obtained and are now online for the first time here – at this point, another Climate Audit exclusive.

When you examine these review comments, as I urge you to do, please remember that this is supposed to be the most carefully reviewed document in human history, where entire stadiums of scientists have carefully weighed each word. Compare that impression to the actual review editor comments, which as you will see do not rise above a form letter for 64 of 69 Review Editor comments discussed here.

Read the rest of the entry here.

There is a very good letter from David Holland to Prof John Mitchell here.

Roger Pielke Sr has taken issue with comments on a nationalpost.com blog by Josh Willis titled, ‘Josh Willis on climate change: Global warming is real.’

Willis is an author of the recent paper on data derived from the ARGO network, which shows no warming in the upper 700m of the ocean over the past 4 years:

The national post blog comment by Willis begins:

“As a scientist, I always enjoy it when people outside my field take an interest in oceanography. But I was a bit disappointed to read Lorne Gunter’s column: Perhaps The Climate Change Models are Wrong, March 24.

It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

Pielke Sr says:

Josh Willis is a well respected scientist and his views merit consideration. In this case, however, Climate Science concludes that he is misinterpreting the significance of his data analysis. He agrees that

“Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years”.

He dismisses this though by claiming that

“…but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. “

Where are these model results that show lack of upper ocean warming in recent years? There is an example of a model prediction of upper (3km) ocean heat content for decadal averages in Figure 1 of

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270-274,

but they did not present shorter time periods. Nonetheless, since Figure 1 is presumably a running 10 year average, the steady monotonic increase in the model prediction of upper ocean heat content (the grey shading) suggests that no several years (or even one year) of zero heating occurred in the model results. The layer they analyzed in the figure is also for the upper 3 km but in Figure 2 the Barnett et al study showed that most of this heating was in the uppermost levels.

Thus the lack of heating in the upper 700m over the last 4 years does conflict with at least the Barnett et al model results!

What the upper ocean data (and lack of warming) actually tells us is that if global warming occurred over the last 4 years, it was in the deeper ocean and is thus not available in the short term to the atmosphere.

Indeed, if it is in the deeper ocean, it likely more diffused and therefore could only enter the atmosphere slowly if at all. This heat could also have exited into space, although the continuation of global ocean sea level rise suggests that this is less likely unless this sea level rise can be otherwise explained.

The other heat stores in the climate system are too small (and the atmosphere has clearly not warmed over the last few years). Global sea ice cover is actually above average at present (the Antarctic sea ice is at a near record level). The continued sea level rise indicates that the heat is in the deeper ocean (which is not predicted by the models).

Finally, there is also no “unrealized” heat in the system. This is a fallacy of using temperature trends as the surrogate for heat trends as has been reported Climate Science (e.g. see, see and see).

Josh Willis too easily dismisses the significance of his research findings.

The general impression one gets from the popular press is that over the last few years there has been accelerated global warming from the elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. In fact global warming has stalled since 1998.

But there was warming during the early part of the 20th Century, and the rate of warming then was almost identical to the rate of warming at the end of the century.

“Without getting into details (ask questions in comments if you have them), using HadCRUTv3 the rate of change during the early part of the 20th century was almost identical to the rate of change at the end of the century. Could there be some sense in which the warming at the end of the 20th century was a repeat of the pattern seen in the earlier part of the century? Since the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions was much lower in the earlier part of the century, what could possibly explain why temperatures increased for so long during that period at a rate comparable to that experienced during the recent warming?

Read more here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-1/