Uncertain, impaired, models

There’s a runway joke in here somewhere, but it seems that this is a pitch for a new satellite program.

From the National Physical Laboratory

Uncertain climate models impair long-term climate strategies

New calibration satellite required to make accurate predictions, say scientists

A new paper published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, explains weaknesses in our understanding of climate change and how we can fix them. These issues mean predictions vary wildly about how quickly temperatures will rise. This has serious implications for long term political and economic planning. The papers lead author is Dr Nigel Fox of The National Physical Laboratory, The UK’s National Measurement Institution.

The Earth’s climate is undoubtedly changing, but how fast and what the implications will be are unclear. Our most reliable models rely on data acquired through a range of complex measurements. Most of the important measurements – such as ice cover, cloud cover, sea levels and temperature, chlorophyll (oceans and land) and the radiation balance (incoming to outgoing energy) – must be taken from space, and for constraining and testing the forecast models, made over long timescales. This presents two major problems.

Firstly, we have to detect small changes in the levels of radiation or reflection from a background fluctuating as a result of natural variability. This requires measurements to be made on decadal timescales – beyond the life of any one mission, and thus demands not only high accuracy but also high confidence that measurements will be made in a consistent manner.

Secondly, although the space industry adheres to high levels of quality assurance during manufacture, satellites, particularly optical usually lose their calibration during the launch, and this drifts further over time. Similar ground based instruments would be regularly calibrated traceable to a primary standard to ensure confidence in the measurements. This is much harder in space.

The result is varying model forecasts. Estimates of global temperature increases by 2100, range from ~2-10◦C. Which of these is correct is important for making major decisions about mitigating and adapting to climate change: for instance how quickly are we likely to see serious and life threatening droughts in which part of the world; or if and when do we need to spend enormous amounts of money on a new Thames barrier. The forecasted change by all the models is very similar for many decades only deviating significantly towards the latter half of this century.

Dr Nigel Fox, head of Earth Observation and Climate at NPL, says: “Nowhere are we measuring with uncertainties anywhere close to what we need to understand climate change and allow us to constrain and test the models. Our current best measurement capabilities would require >30 yrs before we have any possibility of identifying which model matches observations and is most likely to be correct in its forecast of consequential potentially devastating impacts. The uncertainties needed to reduce this are more challenging than anything else we have to deal with in any other industrial application, by close to an order of magnitude. It is the duty of the science community to reduce this unacceptably large uncertainty by finding and delivering the necessary information, with the highest possible confidence, in the shortest possible time.”

The solution put forward by the paper is the TRUTHS (Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial- and Helio- Studies) mission, a concept conceived and designed at NPL. This which would see a satellite launched into orbit with the ability to not only make very high accuracy measurements itself (a factor ten improvement) but also to calibrate and upgrade the performance of other Earth Observation (EO) satellites in space. In essence it becomes “NPL in Space”.

The TRUTHS satellite makes spectrally resolved measurements of incoming solar radiation and that reflected from the ground, with a footprint similar in size to half a rugby field. The unprecedented accuracy allows benchmark measurements to be made of key climate indicators such as: the amount of cloud, or albedo (Earth’s reflectance) or solar radiation, at a level which will allow differences in climate models to be detected in a decade (1/3 that of existing instruments). Its data will also enable improvements in our knowledge of climate and environmental processes such as aerosols, land cover change, pollution and the sequestration of carbon in forests.

However, not only will it provide its own comprehensive and climate critical data sets but can also facilitate an upgrade in performance of much of the world’s Earth observing systems as a whole, both satellite and ground data sets. By performing reference calibrations of other in-flight sensors through near simultaneous observations of the same target, it can transfer its calibration accuracy to them. Similarly its ability to make high accuracy corrections of atmospheric transmittance allow it to calibrate ground networks measuring changes at the surface e.g. flux towers and forests and other reference targets currently used by satellites such as snowfields of Antarctica, deserts, oceans and the Moon. In this way it can even back correct the calibration of sensors in-flight today.

TRUTHS will be the first satellite to have high accuracy traceability to SI units established in orbit. Its own measurements and in particular the calibration of other sensors will not only aid our understanding of climate change but also facilitate the establishment and growth of commercial climate and environmental services. One of the barriers to this markets growth is customer confidence in the results and long-term reliability of service. TRUTHS enable a fully interoperable global network of satellites and data with robust trustable guarantees of quality and performance.

The novelty of TRUTHS lies in its on-board calibration system. The instruments on the TRUTHS satellite will be calibrated directly against an on-board primary standard – an instrument called a CSAR (Cryogenic Solar Absolute Radiometer). This compares the heating effect of optical radiation with that of electrical power – transferring all the difficulties associated with existing space based optical measurements (drift, contamination, etc) to more stable electrical SI units. In effect, this mimicks the traceability chain carried out on the ground in orbit.

This would make climate measurements ten times more accurate and give us models on which we could make important decisions about the future.

The project, which would be led by NPL, is being considered by different organisations. The European Space Agency has recommended looking into ways to take it forward, possibly as a collaboration with other space agencies. NASA is also keen to collaborate formally.

Nigel concludes: “Taking this forward would be an excellent investment for the UK, or any other country which supports it. This is not only an effective way to address the problem of understanding climate change, but also an excellent opportunity for business. It would grow expertise in Earth Observation and showcase the UK’s leading space expertise – an industry which is growing by 10 per cent a year. It would also provide a platform to underpin some of the carbon trading which will be a big international business in the near future.”

###

The full reference for the paper is:

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011) 369, 4028-4063

doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0246

The URL after publication will be: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0246

Nigel Fox delivered a lecture on this subject as part of NPL’s Celebrating Science lecture series, which can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BalCag7fQdE&feature=player_detailpage

More details can also be found at http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS

About the National Physical Laboratory

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is the UK’s National Measurement Institute and one of the UK’s leading science facilities and research centres. It is a world-leading centre of excellence in developing and applying the most accurate standards, science and technology available.

NPL occupies a unique position as the UK’s National Measurement Institute and sits at the intersection between scientific discovery and real world application. Its expertise and original research have underpinned quality of life, innovation and competitiveness for UK citizens and business for more than a century.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 19, 2011 12:51 pm

How uncertain is the future? Nigel should be a lead author on AR5, or at least be asked to account for the discrepancy between his call for more data and the no-need-for-more-data assertion by the IPCC-Gore Group-Grope.
The disconnect within the “consensus” group is further proof of the consensus. But of course consensus exists within the context of levels of disagreement; statistically significant error bars supported by peer-reviewed studies define “consensus” within a p>0.95 range such that outliers (in both sense of the word), ex. skeptics, are recognizable and discountable.
The scary thing is that the above Orwellian statement may be defensible.

Latitude
September 19, 2011 12:53 pm

Our most reliable models………..
Keep changing everything so that there is absolutely no correlation with “normal”….
…since “normal” was defined before they started changing everything

John Cooke
September 19, 2011 12:54 pm

OK, it’s a bid for funds, sure, but it’s also one of the clearest statements put out by a UK institution that states with absolute clarity that the science is definitely nowhere near settled.

Theo Goodwin
September 19, 2011 1:00 pm

At first glance, this sort of thing is just what is needed. I do not yet know if this particular implementation is exactly what is needed. However, I say “Yes” to improved data collection before we do anything else.
Fox gives a brief criticism of climate models and existing data gathering techniques. Both are welcome. I hope he develops both in great detail. I especially like his point that present data gathering techniques will not yield adequate data for decision for perhaps thirty years.

Interstellar Bill
September 19, 2011 1:02 pm

The last thing the Warmistas want is any kind of empirical truth,
especially from a satellite called ‘Truth’. Only computer models need apply for that label.
I expect it will be launched on another Taurus rocket with a sticky fairing,
crashing in Antarctica with the previous two would-be sources of AGW-threatening data.
If launched it will just confirm Spencer’s ideas about no missing heat, Svensmark’s cosmic-ray ideas, and the negative-feedback reality of no catastrophe, impending or otherwise. Such an absolute disaster to the Warmista Bandwagon will never be allowed to happen. Watch for big funding cuts here.

September 19, 2011 1:03 pm

Oh brother, an orbiting acronym. Funny how they seem to need that now. A calibration satellite, eh? Just diddle it any old way ya like, and it will TRUTH everything. They’re just figuring out that there’s a signal-to-noise ratio? Bother. “It is a world-leading centre of excellence in developing and applying the most accurate standards, science and technology available.” Now self-flaggelation is part of the mix.

Hugh Davis
September 19, 2011 1:09 pm

…The forecasted change by all the models is very similar for many decades…
and every prediction made by every model over the past ten years has proved to be inaccurate to the point of worthlessness.

Chris y
September 19, 2011 1:09 pm

The need for a 10x increase in accuracy is one of the most important data points that indicates a low climate sensitivity. If it was high, the existing instruments would be adequate.
It is an excellent investment to fund the collection of more and better observations. Climate model funding should be zeroed out.

mpaul
September 19, 2011 1:10 pm

I worry about giving the Team the ability to re-calibrate the satellites to match the models. What controls will be in place to assure that the calibrations are being done in a open, transparent way that can be audited by independent (non-team, non-peers) scientists?

Dave the Engineer
September 19, 2011 1:13 pm

So between surface temperature readings that are questionable and satellite temperature measurements that are questionable and models that are questionable we have what assurance that global warming is occurring? With all this “questionable” data(?) how do we justifiably call “climate science” a science?

John W
September 19, 2011 1:16 pm

“carbon trading which will be a big international business in the near future.”
The results are already determined.

Don B
September 19, 2011 1:18 pm

The climate is complex, and modeling it is very, very, very hard. Andy Revkin wrote a column about that 10 years ago in the NY Times, and not much has changed. Perhaps a little more money would help.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/03/science/the-devil-is-in-the-details.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
There are a number of interestsing items in Revkin’s column.

DirkH
September 19, 2011 1:29 pm

“The forecasted change by all the models is very similar for many decades only deviating significantly towards the latter half of this century.”
That’s the first time i hear this. As far as I know, you can run the same model twice, with different random initial conditions of the atmosphere, and get wildly varying trends for the first decades of the model run.

September 19, 2011 1:29 pm

Just been today playing with regional runs of CMIP5 model under RCP60 scenario (~SRES1B, realistic projected use of fossil fuels). Alas, they do not produce anything except the hockey sticks, not being able to catch the 20th century record at all. So my recommendation to modelling community is to replicate the known past first, then arguing about 2100.
Station Debrecen, Hungary with 150 years long record vs CMIP model:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/10pt7y9.jpg

September 19, 2011 1:29 pm

“The science is settled, unless it isn’t and/or we’ve got a brand new and supercool idea”.
“Rather than study the climate, we study the models. That’s why we can only justify new space-based observatories as calibration tools for the models”.
“I have no clue about carbon-trading but let’s put it in to brown-nose to our paymasters”

September 19, 2011 1:33 pm

Good calibration through state of the art equipment seems like a sound approach. And looking to satellite sensors would remove pesky earth-based inaccuracies. So far so good.
However, he is essentially saying that all the climate models are accurate enough for the next 40 y (since they more or less agree) — significant divergence starts only thereafter (seems like a stretch to me, but OK). So we just need to know which models to pick within 10 y or so (which is possible ONLY with improved calibration, otherwise it would take 30 y). But we already have > 30 y of satellite data with which to compare models. Shouldn’t it be possible to run those same models on the reams of data over past 30 y in order to separate wheat from chaff?
Or did I miss something?
Looking another way, if the current accuracy in measurement is an order of magnitude below state of the art, how does he know that ANY of the existing models are correct? How does he know that once his improved data has been gathered ANY of the existing models are going to reflect reality?
Between the lines, he betrays an uncanny belief that climate models have it right (more or less). What will he do if/when NONE of them follows reality? Recalibrate? Ask for more funding?
RE: 10% annual growth (of the “Earth Observation” industry): One hopes that this will taper off soon, so governments can focus on truly anthropogenic crises facing us!
Kurt in Switzerland

Desertyote
September 19, 2011 1:33 pm

I’m not impressed. A lot of bold statements from people without the access to the knowlege needed to make those statements.
“NASA is also keen to collaborate formally.” Translation from PRese, “We called some guy at NASA and the guy did’nt hang up.”
“The novelty of TRUTHS lies in its on-board calibration system. The instruments on the TRUTHS satellite will be calibrated directly against an on-board primary standard – an instrument called a CSAR (Cryogenic Solar Absolute Radiometer). This compares the heating effect of optical radiation with that of electrical power – transferring all the difficulties associated with existing space based optical measurements (drift, contamination, etc) to more stable electrical SI units. In effect, this mimicks the traceability chain carried out on the ground in orbit.”
Sorry dude, old hat. This reads like a gee wiz “New Scientist” article.
BTW, I have 35 years of experience with electronic test and measurment, including uncrtainty measurment and calibration. Half of this was for space based electronics some of which are on other worlds.

DirkH
September 19, 2011 1:34 pm

Don B says:
September 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“The climate is complex, and modeling it is very, very, very hard. Andy Revkin wrote a column about that 10 years ago in the NY Times, and not much has changed. Perhaps a little more money would help.”
Yes, by doubling the computer power you could increase your forecasting horizon from 5 to 5.5 days; and by doubling again you could improve it to 6 days. (The deviation of a chaotic system from its model increases exponentially with time)
There is not enough money in the world; THAT’s the crucial problem of climate science. And if they got all the computer power they needed, the heat dissipation of the computer would turn Earth WHITE hot; no greenhouse effect needed.

APACHEWHOKNOWS
September 19, 2011 1:36 pm

The “warm ones” are betting on an insiders straight.
We hold all four aces of the facts.
Call their lame bet via “when will the warming” register and we must pay off.
It is getting boring just watching them move the .0001 of the numbers around as they get nowhere fast.
Without the support of the lie masters of the msm they would throw in their cards and take up another game of chance.

Lonnie E. Schubert
September 19, 2011 1:42 pm

Doesn’t this say that not only is the science not settled but it will take decades to even know if our data is good enough to model?

Will Hudson
September 19, 2011 1:42 pm

John W: “carbon trading which will be a big international business in the near future.”
That is the point I saw as being the ‘runway joke’. This appears to be the UK science way of justifying carbon taxes. At great expense of many further satellite launches, of course, and certainly not at the expense of the UK.

Ian W
September 19, 2011 1:48 pm

If ‘TRUTHS’ output does not match the models then they will insist it needs recalibrating.

September 19, 2011 1:48 pm

Give the shaman gold or the bad spirits will pay a visit…

Paul Milligan
September 19, 2011 1:48 pm

I will be very interested to see if this confession of short-comings earns Dr. Nigel Fox the title of ‘Climate Denier.’

September 19, 2011 1:55 pm

I’d like to do the weekly television show commenting on the results of this experiment:
Peer Reviewed Audio Visual Data Analysis…

1 2 3 4