Tag: Global Science Report

New Government Climate Change Report Yet More “Show Science”

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

You can get anything you want

At Alice’s Restaurant

-Arlo Guthrie, 1967

Late last week, the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP) released a draft version of its latest assessment report on the impacts of climate change in the United States. Updated reports are required by Congressional decree every 4 years or so.  The 2013 report, as it now stands, tips the scales at over 1,000 pages, consequently, we haven’t made our way through it yet, but if the Executive Summary is any indication, this report seems even worse than the one the USGCRP released in 2009.

This is yet another example of our imperial government’s predilection towards “show science” in order to justify taking people’s stuff.  By analogy, think of the “show trials” in some of history’s more freedom-loving regimes. 

As of this writing, it’s not clear if they intend to produce another “summary” document, such as the 200-pager they put out in 2009. That one was so bad as to require us to produce an Addendum that represents what the USGCRP report coudda, shoudda, woudda looked like had the author team made a more complete and fair assessment of the scientific literature.

Admittedly, our Addendum report, which was finalized and released last fall, did include citations from the scientific literature that were published subsequent to the publication of the 2009 USGCRP report, which obviously the USGCRP report authors couldn’t have known about.  But, as our Addendum demonstrates, when these new research results are included, the potential impacts of climate change in the U.S. are substantially tempered.  This leads us to think that the 2013 version from the USGCRP—which seems to hype the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions even more so than the 2009 report did—didn’t do a grand job  in synthesizing the literature.

Nor does it appear they did a good job with the statistics of climate and climate change in the U.S.

Another Lower Climate Sensitivity Estimate

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

As the earth’s climate sensitivity is perhaps the key factor in what climate lies ahead, we’ll often report on scientific findings that enhance our understanding of this important parameter.

Recall from our previous discussion, that the earth’s “climate sensitivity” is the amount that the average global surface temperature will rise, given a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from its pre-industrial value. This metric is the key to understanding how much global warming will occur as we continue to burn fossil fuels for energy and emit the resultant CO2 into the atmosphere.

And as we mentioned, the big problem is that scientists don’t know what the true value of the climate sensitivity really is. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summed up its assessment of the science regarding the value of the climate sensitivity in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) thusly:

It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3.0°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded…

New findings seem to be coming in with some regularity since the publication of the AR4 that the IPCC’s estimate is on the high side of reality.  We discussed some of these findings in our publication Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (p.26-27) and more recent ones in a Global Science Report last month.

Now we have another new, lower estimate, to report on.

Warmest Year on Record in the U.S.

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

When the book closes on the year 2012, it will go down as the warmest year in the National Climatic Data Center’s  (NCDC) history for the contiguous U.S.—a history that goes back to 1895.

And quite a warm year it was, topping the old record held by 1998 by about 1°F—a sizeable margin of victory. In the chart below (Figure 1), I have plotted the entire 118 year record, including the overall average (solid red line) and the 95% confidence range about that mean (+/- two times the detrended standard deviation; dotted red lines). I have also included the linear trend over the 118 years—a value of 0.13°F/decade.

 

Figure 1. U.S. annual average temperatures, 1895-2012 (data source NCDC, 2012 estimated).
 

Notice that the linear is not a great measure of what has been going on climatologically. There have been several multi-decadal periods when the average U.S. temperature has been generally above (1920s-1930s; mid-1990s-present) or below (1890s-1910s; 1960s-1970s) the linear trend term—an indication that larger-scale (quasi-cyclical?) variability plays a defining role in the character of the temperature history.

The role that anthropogenic “global warming” from the emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels plays is debatable—both in timing and magnitude. Almost certainly its influence is present and detectable in the U.S. annual average temperature record, but beyond that simple statement, not a whole lot more can be added with scientific certainty.

Shown below (Figure 2) is the relationship between mean annual global temperature departures from the long-term average and U.S. temperature anomalies.  Statistically, the correspondence between the two is 35%, which means that there are a lot of other things influencing our temperature.

 

Figure 2. Relationship between global and U.S. annual average temperature anomalies, 1895-2011 (data source: NCDC).
 

 

Further, as I have pointed out, there is little we could do to alter the climate influence of anthropogenic emissions even if we wanted to.  So, probably the best thing to do when planning for the future is to be aware of the more or less capricious nature of our nation’s climate and keep in mind that humans are supplying an ever-growing warming pressure on top of that. The Boys Scouts got at least one thing right.

CO2 Benefits Outweigh Climate Stressors: Chinese Wheat

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

In the vast majority of laboratory and field experiments, the benefits of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations for plants (including food crops) generally outweigh the negative impacts from climate change. And this is even assuming the “dumb farmer scenario” that we recently blogged, in which farmers and agronomists don’t develop new production techniques, technologies, crop varietals, etc., to adapt to change, turning expected losses into gains. There is overwhelming evidence such as the remarkably robust increase that has occurred in the yield of most of the world’s major crops when grown in developing or developed nations. In other words, adding CO2 to the atmosphere may be a win-win situation for the world’s vegetation, but we digress…

Here, we’ll highlight a new study showing that including the fertilization effect of higher CO2 concentrations in a crop model of wheat grown in China turns projections of future climate change-driven reductions in crop yields into CO2-driven yield increases.

The study was conducted by researchers Yujie Liu and Fulu Tao of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and will soon be published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. Liu and Tao used a complex crop model to evaluate the changes in wheat production (which accounts from 22% China’s primary food production), in the main wheat cultivation areas in China under three climate change scenarios—global temperature increases of 1°, 2°, and 3°C. They modeled the crop response both with and without considering the fertilization impacts of additional atmospheric CO2 concentrations (which presumably produced the warming) and compared the results. Here is their summary:

There is a high probability of decreasing (increasing) changes in yield and water use efficiency under higher temperature scenarios without (with) consideration of CO2  fertilization effects. Elevated CO2 concentration generally compensates for the negative effects of warming temperatures on production. Moreover, positive effects of elevated CO2 concentration on grain yield increase with warming temperatures. The findings could be critical for climate change-driven agricultural production that ensures global food security.

Findings and conclusions like these are a breath of carbon dioxide-enhanced fresh air in a world of climate gloomsaying.

Reference:

Liu, Y., and F. Tao, 2012. Probabilistic change of wheat productivity and water use in China for global mean temperature changes of 1, 2, and 3°C. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, doi:10.1175/JAMC-D-12-039.1, in press.

The Latest Greenland Kerfluffle: If Their Science Can’t Be Refuted, Smear ‘Em

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

About a year and a half ago, we were co-authors (along with Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld from Texas A&M University) on a paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in which we presented a nearly 225-year reconstruction of surface snow melt across Greenland (Figure 1).

Our reconstruction was based on long-term temperature records from the southern Greenland coast along with historic indicators of the atmospheric circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean. We found that in addition to the period since about the year 2000, there was an extended (multi-decadal) period in the early portion of the 20th century where the amount of surface snowmelt was elevated above the long-term average.  We concluded from this that since there did not appear to be a large increase in the rate of global sea level rise during the early 20th century period of elevated ice melt—a melt driven primarily by warmer than normal temperatures—that Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise during the current period of high temperatures was likely to remain relatively “modest,” at least for the next few decades.

Figure 1. Reconstructed history of the total ice melt extent index over Greenland, 1784–2009. Observed values of the ice melt index (blue solid circles), reconstructed values of the ice melt index (gray open circles), the 10 year trailing moving average through the reconstructed and fitted values (thick red line), and the 95% upper and lower confidence bounds (thin gray lines) (from Frauenfeld et al., 2011).

Neither our methods, nor or findings were overly controversial—or so we thought.

Shortly after our paper was published, one of the reviewers of our paper, a noted snow/ice researcher who has spent a lot of time studying Greenland, Dr. Jason Box, came forwarded and denounced our work. On his blog (in posts he has subsequently removed), he attacked our work both from a scientific standpoint as well as deriding it with a few ad hominems (for example “Examining the 2nd [Knappenberger] and 3rd [Michaels] authors’ credentials, a climate change denialist pattern emerges”).

On both accounts we felt he was wrong (of course) and offered a rebuttal.

But perhaps the strongest argument that our results were scientifically sound comes from an ironic source—the results of new research findings from Jason Box himself!

These new findings from Box, although not yet fully available, have been incorporated into another research project that has recently been published (Gregory et al., 2012) and thus we can get a sneak peek at them.

The solid black line in Figure 2 (below) shows Box’s reconstruction of the sea level rise contribution from Greenland back into since the mid-1800s.

Figure 2. Various estimates of the time series of the Greenland ice-sheet mass contribution to global-mean sea-level rise. The reconstructions are plotted as ten-year running time-means of the sea-level equivalent of the rate of change of mass of the Greenland ice-sheet with respect to the mean of 1961–1990. The solid black line, labeled “B” is the net mass balance, including both surface mass balance and ice discharge from Jason Box. The horizontal dotted line indicates zero. The vertical lines indicate the years in which major volcanic eruptions occurred (from Gregory et al., 2012).

Notice the strong resemblance of Box’s reconstruction of the sea level contribution from Greenland with our reconstruction of the surface snow melt across Greenland.  The snow melt/sea level contribution is currently very high, was relatively low in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, was high from the mid-1920s through the late 1960s, and was lower in the 1800s.

Considering that there are other factors besides snowmelt (like snow accumulation and calving glaciers) that contribute to Greenland’s net contributions to sea level rise, the two curves are remarkably similar. This is a strong indication that whatever is driving snowmelt (regional temperature) is also driving the net sea level contribution.

All of which we wrote in our paper:

This record of ice melt indicates that the melt extent observed since the late 1990s is among the highest likely to have occurred since the late 18th century, although recent values are not statistically different from those common during the period 1923–1961, a period when summer temperatures along the southern coast of Greenland were similarly high as those experienced in recent years. Our reconstruction indicates that if the current trend toward increasing melt extent continues, total melt across the Greenland ice sheet will exceed historic values of the past two and a quarter centuries

…The forces acting in concert with ice melt across Greenland to produce higher global sea levels currently, should also have been acting during the extended high‐melt conditions from the mid‐1920s to the early 1960s.

And we also added this concerning the significance of Greenland’s contribution to the total global sea level rise:

[T]here is no indication that the increased contribution from the Greenland melt in the early to mid 20th century, a roughly 40 year interval when average annual melt was more or less equivalent to the average of the most recent 10 years (2000–2009), resulted in a rate of global sea level rise that exceeded ~mm/yr.  This suggests that Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise, even during multidecadal conditions as warm as during the past several years, is relatively modest.

Figure 3 (anther figure from the new paper from Gregory et al., 2012) shows the breakdown of the factors contributing to the global rise in sea level of the past century and a half.  Greenland’s contribution (based on Box’s reconstruction) is the pale green line (labeled “Greenland-B” in the legend). I think it is pretty fair to characterize this as “modest.”

Figure 3. Observational (black) and a reconstructed (red) time series of global mean sea-level rise (thick lines, with 5–95% observational uncertainty shaded), also showing the contributions to the latter (thin lines), identified by the time series initials in the key (from Gregory et al., 2012).

Why was such a big deal was made about our research results and “denialist” credentials when subsequent results, made by the very person who went ad hominem, completely replicate our findings?

References:

Box, J. E., Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part III: Marine ice loss and total mass balance (1840–2010). Journal of Climate, submitted (as cited by Gregory et al., 2012).

Frauenfeld, O.W., P.C. Knappenberger, and P.J. Michaels, 2011. A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent, 1785-2009. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, D08104, doi: 10.1029/2010JD014918.

Gregory, J., et al., 2012. Twentieth-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? Journal of Climate, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1, in press.

Climate Sensitivity Going Down

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

“Climate sensitivity” is the amount that the average global surface temperature will rise, given a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial value. This metric is the key to understanding how much global warming will occur as we continue to burn fossil fuels for energy and emit the resultant CO2 into the atmosphere.

The problem is that we don’t know what the value of the climate sensitivity really is.

In its Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had this to say about the climate sensitivity:

It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3.0°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded…

In IPCC parlance, the term “likely” means a probability of greater than 66% and “very likely” means a greater than 90% change of occurrence. The IPCC’s 90% range for the climate sensitivity  includes values at the low end which, if proven true, would engender very little concern over our use of fossil fuels as a primary energy source, and values at the high end would generate calls for frantic efforts (which would likely fail)  to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

While there has been a lot of effort expended to better constrain estimates of sensitivity over the past several decades, little progress has been made in narrowing the range.  The IPCC’s First Assessment Report, released back in 1990, gave a range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C.  It’s not that climate science hasn’t progressed since then, but just that the advanced understanding has not led to substantially better constraints.

But what has occurred over the past several decades is that greenhouse emissions have continued to rise (in fact, half of the total anthropogenerated  carbon dioxide emissions have been since the mid-1980s), and global temperature observations have continued to be collected.  We now have much more data with which to use to try to determine the sensitivity.

While global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise year-over-year (primarily driven by the rapid growth in developing countries such as China), global temperatures have not kept up—in fact, there has been little to no overall global temperature increase (depending upon the record used) over the past decade and a half.

That doesn’t bode well for the IPCC’s high-end temperature sensitivity estimates. The scientific literature is now starting to reflect that reality.

Never mind that Pat Michaels and I published a paper in 2002 showing that the sensitivity lies near the low side of the IPCC’s range.  This idea (and those in similar papers subsequently published by others) had largely been ignored by the “mainstream” scientists self-selected to produce the IPCC Assessments.  But new results supporting lower and tighter estimates of the climate sensitivity are now appearing with regularity,  a testament to just how strong the evidence has become, for such results had to overcome the guardians of the IPCC’s so called “consensus of scientists”, which the Climategate emails showed to be less than gentlemanly.

Figure 1 shows the estimates of the climate sensitivity from five research papers that have appeared in the past two years, including the recent contributions from Ring et al. (2012) and van Hateren (2012)—both of which put the central estimate of the climate sensitivity at 2°C or lower, values which are at or beneath the IPCC’s  current “likely” range.

Figure 1. Climate sensitivity estimates from new research published in the past two years (colored), compared with the range given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (black). The arrows indicate the 5 to 95% confidence bounds for each estimate along with the mean (vertical line) where available. Ring et al. (2012) present four estimates of the climate sensitivity and the red box encompasses those estimates.  The right-hand side of the IPCC range is dotted to indicate that the IPCC does not actually state the value for the upper 95% confidence bound of their estimate. The thick gray line represents the IPCC’s “likely” range.

The IPCC is scheduled to release its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013.  We’ll see whether these new, lower, and more constrained estimates of climate sensitivity  that are increasing populating the literature result in a modification of the IPCC estimates, or whether the IPCC authors manage to wave  them all away (or simply ignore them, as was the case with our 2002 paper).

Regardless of how the IPCC ultimately assesses climate science in 2013, the fact of the matter is that there is growing evidence that anthropogenic climate change from the burning of fossil fuels is not going to turn out to be as much as climate alarmists have made it out to be.

References:

Annan, J.D., and J.C. Hargreaves, 2011. On the genera­tion and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change, 104, 324-436.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implica­tions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 47, 377-390.

Michaels, P.J., P.C. Knappenberger, O.W. Frauenfeld, and R.E. Davis, 2002. Revised 21st century temperature predictions. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.

Ring, M.J., et al., 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2, 401-415, doi:10.4236/acs.2012.24035.

Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimat­ed from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 334, 1385-1388, doi: 10.1126/science.1203513.

Solomon, S., et al., (eds.), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996pp.

van Hateren, J.H., 2012. A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1375-3.

Straw Men

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Benjamin Santer and his mentor, Tom Wigley, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research seem, well, a little obsessed over Cato’s Pat Michaels.  First, Santer threatened to “beat the cr&p out of him”, and then Wigley tried to foment a cabal to “re-assess” his doctoral dissertation, under grounds that were completely, unalterably, and demonstrably 100 percent false.

So it’s no surprise that they have just published—two years after the fact—what they consider to be a rejoinder to Michaels’ 2010 testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives.  There’s about as much real substance here as there was in Wigley’s very ill-informed (and seemingly actionable, if Michaels didn’t have a day job here at Cato) campaign against his doctorate.

It’s just been published in the journal Climate Dynamics.  This is technically peer-reviewed, but, judging from the climategate emails and the serial paper trail of threatening journal editors (say, by writing to the University administrations where they worked) as well as the less than high quality contents of the actual paper, it makes you wonder just how critical the reviewers actually were.

In their paper, Wigley and Santer wrote:

Michaels’ 2010 Congressional testimony…is in conflict with the results presented here. This testimony makes the claims that “…greenhouse-related warming is clearly below the mean of relevant forecasts by IPCC”, and that “… the Finding of Endangerment from greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency is based on a very dubious and critical assumption”. The “assumption” referred to here is the IPCC statement that is the primary focus of the present paper, i.e., the statement that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Regarding Michaels’ statement that “…greenhouse-related warming is clearly below the mean of relevant forecasts by IPCC” Wigley and Santer argued that:

Roughly half of these [IPCC climate model] simulations did not consider the cooling effect of indirect aerosol forcing, so the results, on average, would be biased towards trends that are warmer than observed even if the models were perfect (cf. Santer et al. 2011).

So the climate models are biased to producing more warming than is observed? Isn’t that what Michaels said? These guys just won’t take “yes” for an answer.

And in fact, the reference in the above quote to “Santer et al. 2011” is a paper published by Santer and Wigley (and 15 others) that finds:

The multi-model average [lower atmospheric temperature] trend is always larger than the average observed [lower atmospheric temperature] trend…[a]s the trend fitting period increases…average observed trends are increasingly more unusual with respect to the multi-model distribution of forced trends.

That says what you think it says! Model temperature trends are always higher than the observed temperature trends and that over longer periods (i.e., more robust analysis) the model/observed discrepancy grows. Here is the relevant figure from that paper.

Figure 1. A comparison between modeled and observed trends in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere, for periods ranging from 10 to 32 years (during the period 1979 through 2010). The yellow is the 5-95 percentile range of individual model projections, the green is the model average, the red and blue are the average of the observations, as compiled by Remote Sensing Systems and University of Alabama in Huntsville respectively (adapted from Santer et al., 2011).

Their own analysis supports Michaels’ contention, which they somehow say is wrong.  Beats me.

In fact, their picture looks an awful lot like the one that Michaels used in his testimony (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Range of climate model probabilities of surface temperature trends (gray shading) overlaid with the observed surface temperature trend from the Climate Research Unit (blue line) (data through September 2010).

It’s worth noting that Michaels’ was the first presenter of this type of chart several years ago.  In fact, Wigley reviewed a paper it was in, helped get the editor to kill it, and then, with Santer, published something mighty similar.  How strange for someone they are arguing is wrong.

It goes on.

They then take exception with Michaels’ statement to Congress that the IPCC’s central finding that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” is “dubious.”

Wigley and Santer spill a lot of ink over the concept that in the absence of everything else, that the potential warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is likely greater than the observed warming. Michaels didn’t say that it wasn’t. In fact, most people believe this as true.

Michaels was concerned about the observed warming not some hypothetical, unrealizable (and therefore unverifiable) change. After all, it is the actual warming that the environment largely responds to. So when assessing the accuracy of the IPCC statement on observed warming, it is therefore appropriate to divide it up between various elements as he did.

While there’s a lot of gory detail in this discussion (see here, for more ), one thing that I think we all should be able to agree on is that it is physically impossible for something (like the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases) to be responsible for causing more than 100% of what has been observed, and that such statements like this one from Wigley and Santer’s paper,

Here, the probability that the model-estimated GHG component of warming is greater than the entire observed trend (i.e., not just greater than ‘‘most’’ of the observed warming) is about 93%.

is something other than science, because one surely cannot find something that nature will not reveal.

The bottom line here is that in their paper, Wigley and Santer seem to place more import on the attack of Pat Michaels, than they do on the actual logic behind it.


References:

Santer,  B. D., C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P.J. Gleckler , T.M.L. Wigley, S. Solomon, N.P. Gillett, D. Ivanova D, T.R. Karl, J.R. Lanzante, G.A. Meehl, P.A. Stott, K.E. Taylor, P.W. Thorne, M.F. Wehner, F.J. Wentz, 2011. Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: the importance of timescale. Journal of Geophysical Research116, D22105. doi:10.1029/2011JD016263

Wigley, T.M.L., and B.D. Santer, 2012. A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8