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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about sticking a large reflector on the Moon, that can be read from Earth by telescopes?
Better yet, send up a rover to land and observe Earth as a whole.
Excuse me but I’m not sure I understand how the science is settled when the data is “an order of magnitude” too uncertain for long term projections. And of course short term projections are impossible because that’s weather, not climate.
It appears that the science is settled like what I flush down my toilet is settled on the bottom of my septic tank. It’s a load of crap, basically.
Just sayin’
So we can read a license plate number on an automobile of interest from orbit but we can’t park a satellite in geosync that can focus on the earth and determine total brightness to better than a few percent?
Forgive me but this sounds almost simple enough for a fifth grade science project. Focus the camera on the moon for a constant brightness reference then point it at the earth. Snap, snap, done. We don’t even have to return the film to the earth to be developed like we did with Keyhole spy satellites 60 years ago.
WTF is UWT?
Is it just me or are they trying to tell us that we have current satellites up there orbiting next to cosmic BBQ’ers, space age air conditioners, and shiny metal spaceships?
David Henderson says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Unfortunately not. It has a number of difficulties not least of which is that it can only take measurements once a month. As I recall it ran for five years around the turn of the millenium and the measurements were not in satisfactory agreement with other methods employed to measure earth’s albedo. I checked up on it recently and the earthshine boffins are now claiming they’ve “corrected” the data so it now agrees with other methods.
Pencil whipping of contrary, unexpected, and/or inconvenient experimental data (i.e. data obtained by real science as opposed to imaginary data obtained from youngsters playing with badly programmed toy computer models) is rampant.
Hide the decline.
I didn’t read the whole article because I’ve been told many times that the science is settled. I reckon that means there is no need for anymore measurements. So what are they on about?
Not sure if it’s a runway joke but my flight instructor once told me:
The two most useless things in the world are altitude above you and runway behind you.
“consequential potentially devastating impacts”
No agenda here folks. Just another gubment employment program, lasting decades.
Since co2 has been proven to not be a significant climate temperature driver, there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do to change climate one way or the other.
Don B – nice article. In criticizing the models, which are necessarily imperfect given the complexity of Earth system, we often forget what a major intellectual achievement it is that they do as well as they do.
If there’s one area of climate science where people’s criticism isn’t backed up with meaningful specifics, constructive alternatives, or a basic understanding of the development process, modeling would be it. As proven by the comments here.
Bob says:
September 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Let me reconstruct your last paragraph to be true:
“If there one area of climate science that isn’t backed up with complete specifics, empirical data, or a basic understanding of the complexity of the earth, modeling would be it. As proven by the many posts and accompanying comments found here at WUWT for man months, even years.
Apparently you haven’t been doing your homework. And to refute your first statement “that they do as well as they do” simply isn’t good enough to base drastic changes in the way we live–you’d throw Western Civilization basically under the bus because you think they can predict the future. I can’t predict the future either, but I’m not making drastic, outlandish, suicidal proposals–but unlike your climate modelers, I’m freely willing to admit it. They aren’t.
Why do all of these thing sound like a pitch for more funding ?
Dave Springer wrote;
“So we can read a license plate number on an automobile of interest from orbit but we can’t park a satellite in geosync that can focus on the earth and determine total brightness to better than a few percent?”
Dave, is your license plate number 8T6-W5E7 ? Just checking to see if we got it right. Ha ha.
The Spy satellites recently declassified had ground resolutions of a few FEET, so unless you had a really BIG license plate they probably could not read it.
They could detect your car/tank/missile/submarine/bomber and that is what they needed to do.
Dave also wrote;
“Forgive me but this sounds almost simple enough for a fifth grade science project. Focus the camera on the moon for a constant brightness reference then point it at the earth. Snap, snap, done.”
Actually, making absolute measurements of optical radiation (Visible/IR/Far IR) is one of the more challenging measurement problems that exist. IMHO it is much harder than measuring electrical power, distance, temperature, time, etc. etc.
Just look up the international standard for optical radiation, it is based on the flux coming from a molten pool of platinum. Why ?, well in part they could not find a better absolute standard. Even with this standard and lots of careful measurements it is DIFFICULT to make absolute optical radiation measurements on the surface of the Earth to much better than a few percent (that’s in the visible region, in the infrared better than 3-5% is state of the art). Doing it on orbit is orders of magnitude more difficult.
There is lots of info on this topic at the NISTwebsite among other locations.
Cheers, Kevin.
(FYI, I have worked on the ground calibration of the radiometric accuracy of Earth imaging satellites. I would much prefer measuring the absolute length of a stick to better than 0.001%)
RockyRoad, what level of agreement would you need from a range of models to be convinced that the climate will get a lot warmer, like nothing Western Civilization has experienced, under a BAU scenario?
Also, how are current models not continually compared against a lot of empirical data?
Also, how have models not gotten better in reflecting the complexity of the Earth?
In other words, what would be a sufficient model?
Or, alternatively, if you don’t like the current models, what’s you alternative? (remembering that observations alone won’t cut it – any cause and effect attribution requires some kind of model).
I enjoyed, ex officio, a tour of NPL a couple of years back, talked for some hours with some of the lead scientists and was given demonstrations of their work. They are very, very good at what they do (i.e. measure stuff). Brilliant in fact. Science at the level of art. Of course what happens afterwards to the measurements they obtain is anyone’s guess.
My thoughts exactly! A earth image that fills 100% of the measurement frame seems the logical path of metrology. The signal would be clean and hard to dispute. Are you aware of the status and priority of any such proposals? GK
Uhm…AMSU-A which provides the data for UAH run by Dr Spencer recalibrates itself several times per day by (if I recall correctly) comparing to readings from outer space known to be stable. Given the absolute glee with which his detractors reiterate the tiniest of errors he’s made, long after he’s corrected them, and publicly to boot, one would think they’d have gone after him big time if there was anything wanting in terms of his calibration methodology? Sounds to me like NPL is hyping a problem that they haven’t even shown for certain exists, and I doubt that it does for the most part.
But the biggest objection possible to their plan should be the notion of using ONE satellite to calibrate ALL THE OTHERS. That frankly, is just insane. For starters, if their “truths” satellite turns out to have an error of its own, then ALL the data from ALL the satellites would be calibrated WRONG.
WORSE… we would have no way of knowing!
WORSER….We’d be abandoning everything we ever learned about science and measurement. Just when I thought there was NOTHING LEFT TO ABANDON! The whole point about science and measurement is to use different methods of investigation. If you get the same answers via different methods, that’s evidence you got it right. If you get different answers…that’s evidence that there are one or more errors in one or more of the methods, and the manner in which they differ is a clue to figuring out what the errors ARE!
WORSER STILL…Measurement requires that you ALWAYS START AT ZERO. They don’t teach drafting anymore, just Autocad, which doesn’t teach the same lessons. If you draw a line 10 cm long, with tick marks at 4, 8 and 9 cm, you NEVER measure out four and then four more and then one more to get 4, 8, and 9. Why? Because if you make a mistake on 4, then 8 and 9 are now both wrong as well. Instead, you measure (from zero) 4 and (from zero) 8 and (from zero) 9. Any mistake is confined to that one measurement instead of all the measurements that follow.
So sure…let’s put up ONE satellite using ONE method with NO WAY TO VERIFY it, and use it as the reference for EVERYTHING ELSE.
This is the kind of science that can only be explained by a runway model.
(Sorry, just couldn’t come up with an aviation runway line…)
To G. Karst and other interested parties; I again suggest you start your quest by investigating the international standards that have been agreed to;
http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/spectroradiometric.cfm
Measuring ABSOLUTE optical radiation (i.e. the whole basis of the “greenhouse effect) is DIFFICULT.
It is quite a bit more that a “fifth grade science project”. I have done it for a living and I doubt I could have done it after the fifth grade.
Cheers, Kevin.
davidmhoffer:
One satellite to rule them all.
It would be PRECIOUS. GK
GK;
ROFLMAO
KevinK says:
September 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm
It is quite a bit more that a “fifth grade science project”. I have done it for a living and I doubt I could have done it after the fifth grade.
Cheers, Kevin.
Please note I did not quote that part of DS’s comment. It was hyperbole for sure but some literary licence is permitted, I think. My comment was:
I looked at your link. There is much information there.
http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/spectroradiometric.cfm
Is there something specific you wanted me to note which precludes geo-stationary orbital measurement? What about the question that I posed:
Cheers GK
Bill Illis.
Climate models do not rely on a simple ln() formula for C02. They rely on band models for their RTE. You can even see intercomparison experiments where the band models are compared to LBL models and to physical measurements.
Here is one where the two GCMS didnt do so well
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf11/extended_abs/iacono_mj.pdf
So its a falsehood that GCMs use a simple log equation for the effect of C02.
More proof?
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/
In the 1980′s, band models began to be incorporated routinely in climate models. An international program of Intercomparison of Radiation Codes in Climate Models (ICRCCM) was inaugurated for clear sky infrared radiative transfer, with results described by Ellingson et al. 1991 and Fels et al. 1991 (note Andy Lacis is a coauthor):
here is something else you should study
http://circ.gsfc.nasa.gov/
There are band models. A band model is best described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_radiative_transfer_codes
In a band model the spectrum is split into various bands.
For higher fidelity you would use an LBL model or line by line model.
Both band models and LBL models are validated against measurements.
The ln formula is a simple “curve fit” that is used to EXPLAIN the ln response. It is not used in any GCM.
As with all modelling we have a hierarchy of models. At the top of the pyramid we have LBL models. These are the most precise. They are validated against observation. They work. They make predictions precise enough that we actually use them to produce the data products that you like to use.. like SSTs measured from space. There is no need to model individual molecules. Below the LBL model is the band model. Its faster ( some even run onboard satillites) but slightly less precise.
At the bottom.. lies the phenomenlogical model. This is where the ln() model lies. It’s used to “illustrate” ideas in simple ways. like saying the trajectory of a projectile follows a certain curve.. we all know that curve is a gross approximation, but it gets the general idea across.
Interstellar Bill says:(September 19, 2011 at 1:02 pm)
“The last thing the Warmistas want is any kind of empirical truth, especially from a satellite called ‘Truth’. … ”
Reminds me of the old Russian joke from the Soviet era, when they had two state newspapers called Pravda (“Truth”) and Izhvestia (“Information”). They used to joke that you could get truths which weren’t informative, or information which wasn’t true, but nowhere could you find truthful information. You have to love the grimness of their humour … meanwhile, wait for a satellite called “Information”.
And yes. No re-calibration or re-interpretation of the results without complete openness, please.
Bob:
Concerning climate models, at September 19, 2011 at 8:49 pm you ask RockyRoad.
“In other words, what would be a sufficient model?
Or, alternatively, if you don’t like the current models, what’s you alternative? (remembering that observations alone won’t cut it – any cause and effect attribution requires some kind of model).”
I offer the following correct, accurate and true answers to your questions.
A sufficient model has demonstrated predictive skill.
But
(a) no climate model has existed for sufficient time for it to have demonstrated any predictive skill for periods of 25, 50 or 100 years.
and
(b) each climate model has demonstrated that it lacked the predictive skill needed to predict the stasis in global warming of the last decade.
In other words, the only predictive skill demonstrated by the climate models is that they fail to predict global climate change at decadal time scales.
There are several alternatives to climate models that have similar demonstrated predictive skill for prediction of future climate. For example, one such alternative is the examination of chicken entrails.
Richard
@Steve Mosher
“Both band models and LBL models are validated against measurements.”
Yes, they are obviously parametrized to fit the 1980-2000 period, but totally unable to replicate periods before and after. Lets see the Arctic polar region, allegedly the most sensitive area to those thick forcing arrows in K-H cartoons:
http://1.1.1.2/bmi/oi43.tinypic.com/14ihncp.jpg
Models blindly follow the Keeling curve and there is not a hint of cyclical variability observed in reality. How long the sine wave will have to be going down, until they are invalidated?
“LBL models.. are the most precise. They are validated against observation. They work. They make predictions precise enough that we actually use them to produce the data products that you like to use.. like SSTs measured from space.”
Oh really? Lets see the North Atlantic, modelled vs observed:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/wa6mia.jpg
I see no cyclical variation captured by the model, which produce again just another hockey-stick. Where is the warming 1910-1940 and cooling 1940-1980 in the models “which work and are the most precise”?? What is so unusual in post-1980 warming? What will models and modellers do, when the post-2005 cooling will become obvious?
Global projections: where is the “AGW may be masked for a decade, our models predicted exactly that” warming lull?
http://oi55.tinypic.com/14mf04i.jpg
Models are totally disconnected from the reality. All that modelling BS is computerized wanking on 30-year natural trend, AMO/PDO being in a positive phase. Me guess all that radiative pseudophysics is BS, or overestimated 10x.
Measure and correlate every thing about our Earth and its interaction with the heavens and maybe around a hundred years from now we just might be able to make sense of it.
The game being played for now on the play stations is cr#p.