IPCC science

This thread is for discussion of the IPCC and scientific matters.

129
Leave a Reply

avatar
49 Comment threads
80 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
MagooMike JowseyRichard TreadgoldSimonAustralis Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

IPCC’s pause ‘logic’ by Judith Curry Well here it is, the pause discussion is buried in Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report. […] JC summary My original intention for this thread was to go through and try to map the IPCC’s logical argument. I quickly got dizzy owing to seemingly unwarranted assumptions and incomplete information (such as: did the climate models use the correct external forcing for the first decade of the 21st century, or not?). I was then going to illustrate how any reasonable propagation of uncertainty of individual assertions/arguments through their main argument would produce much lower confidence in their overall conclusions. For example, they seem to have eliminated high CO2 sensitivity as a problem. Not to mention high confidence in increasing trend following 2012 (this high confidence comes right after blowing the prediction of the previous decade). And of course not to mention the relevant journal articles that didn’t get mentioned. Apart from these obvious flaws, reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful. Can someone remind me again how and why all this is supposed to be useful? http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/ Their “main argument” from… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…this statement and it’s rationale will be (or should be) dissected remorselessly”

Like this:

‘IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure’

[Includes….]

Tutorial for Science Journalists:

A few questions serious journalists might want to ask instead of just cut and pasting press releases from activists.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The 50-50 argument’ by Judith Curry, August 24, 2014 Pick one: a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans. b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes. When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′. Gavin [Schmidt] thinks I’m ‘making things up’, so I promised yet another post on this topic. […extensive analysis…] The IPCC notes overall warming since 1880. In particular, the period 1910-1940 is a period of warming that is comparable in duration and magnitude to the warming 1976-2000. Any anthropogenic forcing of that warming is very small (see Figure 10.1 above). The timing of the early 20th century warming is consistent with the AMO/PDO (e.g. the stadium wave; also noted by Tung and Zhou). The big unanswered question is: Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun? Is it a longer period ocean oscillation? Could the same processes causing the early 20th century warming be contributing to the late 20th century warming? Not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Curry: I am arguing here that the ‘choice’ regarding attribution shouldn’t be binary, and there should not be a break at 50%; rather we should consider the following terciles for the net anthropogenic contribution to warming since 1950: >66% 33-66% <33% # # # I argue that the ‘choice’ should be in terms of all risk factor possibilities (including anthro, solar, ocean oscillations etc, which JC covers) rather than in narrow, unary, out of date, IPCC terms of anthro attribution-only thinking i.e. risk scenarios for the future are a far more useful and responsible tool because the respective probability weighting of each factor can be revised (even discarded) as the situation evolves over time. A cooler regime setting in over the next 5 years (or just continued stasis) automatically eliminates the top 2 attribution choices above (>66% and JC’s 33-66%), along with the risk assigned to them. Radical cooling after say 2020 would eliminate all but the “negligible” element of the lower attribution choice (<33%) i.e. attribution 'choice' in those terms is somewhat premature in view of the "pause" in global warming. Only if warming resumes in the next 3 – 5 years… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I stumbled on a University of Cambridge document that “synthesizes” AR5:

‘CLIMATE CHANGE: ACTION, TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS’
The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1

http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/IPCCWebGuide.pdf

Curiously, on page 6 there is this definition of climate change (my emphasis):

CLIMATE CHANGE

Natural and human factors drive climate change by altering the Earth’s energy budget. At present there is a net uptake of the Sun’s energy by the Earth system; that is, more energy is entering the Earth system than is being lost back to space. The outcome is an increase in heat energy stored by the Earth. This imbalance is driving the rise in global temperature. AR5 concludes that over 90% of the excess heat is stored in the ocean.”

There’s no attribution for this statement so I assume it is by the University of Cambridge authors rather than the IPCC.

Here’s the thing. Drop the two words “and human” and the remaining definition is one which I’m sure any solar-centric critic of the MMCC hypothesis would agree with. I certainly do.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Detection of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming: What the IPCC Said Back In 1990 Changing goal posts or better science?’ Ronald Bailey|Apr. 8, 2015 “Detection of the Greenhouse Gas Effect in the Observations” in the 1990 IPCC report 8.4 When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected? The fact that we have not detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question when is this likely to occur? As noted earlier, this is not a simple yes/no issue. Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity. Uncertainties will always remain. Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change – more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both future signal and future noise level. Nevertheless, we can provide some information on the time-scale for detection by using the unprecedented change concept mentioned briefly in Section 8.14. This should provide an upper bound to the time of detection since more sophisticated methods… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘RCP 8.5: The “Mother of all” Junk Climate Science’

David Middleton / 9 hours ago April 5, 2016

Representative Concentration (or Carbon)Pathway 8.5 assumes a “rising radiative forcing pathway leading to 8.5 W/m² in 2100.”

It is generally assumed, with little dissent, that each doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration will add 3.7 W/m² to the net infrared radiative flux.

A doubling of the supposedly stable pre-industrial CO2 level (280 ppmv to 560 ppmv) should yield 3.7 W/m² of additional forcing to the net infrared radiative flux. In order to get 8.5 W/m², the atmospheric CO2 concentration would have to rise to 1,370 ppm…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/05/rcp-8-5-the-mother-of-all-junk-climate-science/

# # #

Theoretical CO2 forcing as at 2015: 1.9 W.m-2

TOA energy imbalance 2000 – 2010: 0.6 W.m-2

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Report Graphics – Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
WORKING GROUP I – Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [AR5]
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/reports-graphic/ch8-graphics/

Figure 8.15 – Radiative forcing of climate between 1750 and 2011
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-15.jpg

BIG PROBLEM. Total net anthropogenic forcing is +2.3 W.m-2, natural solar is negligible, but the earth’s energy imbalance is only +0.6 W.m-2.

Worse, the surface energy budget, as cited by AR5 WG1 Chapter 2, shows the +0.6 imbalance is simply solar energy (SWdown) supplying surface heat accumulation (+0.6) predominantly in the oceanic heat sink:

Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1 Surface budget
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

+SWdown -SWup -SHup -LHup -LWnet(up) = Surface imbalance

+188 -23 -24 -88 -52.4 = +0.6 W.m-2

+188 -187.4 = +0.6 W.m-2

Solar energy down is greater than energy up at the surface.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)