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.
Steven Mosher says:
September 19, 2011 at 11:35 pm
——————
LBL radiative transfer codes are more accurate than measuring what really happens?
Let’s look at a key result of LBL models – the tropical tropospheric hotspot – measurements show that it is more of tropical tropospheric cool spot instead.
Actual LBL radiative transfer in the atmosphere occurs at the pico to nano-second timeframe. Climate models use “parametrization” which makes it little different than 5.35 ln (CO2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametrization_(climate)
Trillions upon trillions of nano-second-scale energy transfers are reduced to a formula covering a 20 km by 20 km by 3 km box. Just because LBL is more refined than a simple 5.35 ln(CO2) formula doesn’t make it all accurate.
What role does N2 and O2 play in LBL code? Most energy transfer in the atmosphere occurs through molecular collisions rather than radiative transfer.
.
I don’t think your question framed properly.
The current modality inputs has been shown to be both biased and incomplete. To base any climate decisions on projections of a deeply flawed model would be folly! To take far reaching, dramatic, consequent rife actions, based on this model, is ludicrous. When reality mocks your model… It is time to put your hands into your pockets and leave them there. WUWT will let you know when the current modality has been improved enough. I certainly want to see the model with valid inputs (cloud effects) and validation runs forward and back.
Under the current information via propaganda paradigm, how long do you think that will take? GK
G. Karst: It is time to put your hands into your pockets and leave them there. WUWT will let you know when the current modality has been improved enough. I certainly want to see the model with valid inputs (cloud effects) and validation runs forward and back.
I definitely understand concerns about climate models and the need for much better ones, but your reply really can’t be taken seriously. Co2 is a significant gas and its increases have to be taken seriously, even if models can’t predict all the future details. No one knows the future anyway, in terms of emissions, or population growth, energy trends, et cetera, so no prediction is really possible even in principle. We will have to act in the face of uncertainty, and we know, even without models, that climate sensitivity S is about 3 +/- 1.5 C from studying past climates.
Does it really matter much if S is only 1.5 C instead of 4.5 C when BAU Co2 levels will be something like 600 ppm by 2100? (If not higher.)
Shouldn’t we be taking action now at least as a form of insurance against the worst case scenarios? Waiting 25-50 years to see how today’s models play out — by when we will have much better models anyway — does not seem to me to be a sensible approach to a potentially large problem.
JeffG:
At September 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm you say;
“Shouldn’t we be taking action now at least as a form of insurance against the worst case scenarios? Waiting 25-50 years to see how today’s models play out — by when we will have much better models anyway — does not seem to me to be a sensible approach to a potentially large problem.”
The worst case scenario by far is a significant constraint on anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Such constraint would reduce the use of fossil fuels with resulting deaths of billions of people mostly children. No possible effect of AGW could be anywhere near as horrific as that.
So, the required “action now at least as a form of insurance against the worst case scenarios” is to oppose such emission constraints.
Richard
JeffG,
Where were you millions of years ago when CO2 levels were 7000 ppm, causing permanent, irreversible damage to our yet to be environment ?.?? Why it could have been a worst case scenario !
Richard, I did not say we should reduce the use of energy. If we are concerned about Co2 we should be researching, developing, and installing ways to produce energy that does not emit it.
Mike Wryley: Millions of years ago there were not billions of people on the planet who depended on a large and honed agricultural system, or who lived in immovable cities on coastlines, or who depended on adequate freshwater supplies from rainfall and snow packs. Humanity does not have the adaptability that ecosystems and species did millions of years ago, and our climate is changing very fast compared to historical averages.
JeffG says:
“If we are concerned about Co2…” We’re not. The “carbon” scare is trumped up nonsense.
And:
“Millions of years ago there were not billions of people on the planet who depended on a large and honed agricultural system, or who lived in immovable cities on coastlines, or who depended on adequate freshwater supplies from rainfall and snow packs. Humanity does not have the adaptability that ecosystems and species did millions of years ago, and our climate is changing very fast compared to historical averages.”
Malthus himself could have written that.
Instead of scaring yourself, Jeff, try thinking rationally: those billions of people now live much longer, healthier lives on average than those who lived only a couple of centuries ago. Don’t buy into climate alarmism that is motivated by $billions. Just look around you at all the progress in health and living standards. The climate charlatans are just using lies to fool you for their own personal benefit.
I buttonholed my plant friends and they all look forward to warm, wetter, CO2 enhanced climate. They assured me, that even under your flawed projected range, they will most likely be able to feed 10 billion human mouths. They are very concerned that someone may be lying to them and additional CO2 plant food may not affect temperature significantly. In fact their northern friends have been feeling a little frigid. Mr. seaweed reports cooling sea temps and flat sea levels and wants to know WTF. Some idiot had told them ice was melting. They have warned me, however, that any significant cooling, and they will retaliate, by feeding only half.
Since my friends have fed me from birth and I owe any continuance to them, I tend to listen to them very carefully. If you mess with my friends you mess with me. GK
Smokey, I certainly accept the necessity of plentiful, affordable energy as fundamental to a richer, healthier life. This is especially necessary for progress in the developing world. I do not advocate depriving anyone of energy.
At the same time, I think we know enough to conclude that our large emissions of Co2 are risky and could change the climate. We don’t know all the details, and we might never know, but we don’t have to know if S is 2.5 C or 3.5 C in order to conclude we ought to stop emitting Co2, because with BAU we are going to rise to very high levels of Co2, 600 or more ppm. I don’t think that hiding from this is a solution, with all due respect.
We need both more energy and less Co2. Both camps are right. But how to do it?
G.Karst, that’s a truly funny post but I still don’t think you are addressing my concern. People aren’t lying about the Co2/T connection. Maybe they are wrong about the S value. But maybe they are right. Or maybe they are on wrong on the low side.
In any case, it doesn’t seem to me we can just say “they are wrong” and leave it at that. Maybe the people who say they are wrong are themselves wrong. Can we afford to bet the farm on them?
Won’t there always be some uncertainty? I think there will. Don’t we have to prepare for the possibility of a bad scenario? Just like in the rest of life. I’d rather not spend the money for a lot of safety features on my car, and I don’t expect to get in an accident and I hope I do not. But I might. I just can’t be sure of the future. At the same time I don’t want to get rid of my car, but I also wouldn’t count on a 1930s model to protect me, and I buy insurance. Isn’t Co2 the same?
.
We have just discussed the “precautionary principle” gone wild @ur momisugly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/30/precautionary-principle-memo-ready-for-transmission/
Seriously, before rehashing the precautionary principal, read: Climate, Caution, and Precaution
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/31/climate-caution-and-precaution/
It takes real wealth to mitigate disaster. It takes, a lot of real wealth and resources and technology to decipher climate. Anything that impedes this chain will impede any realistic response. Broad, deliberate global actions can have disastrous, unintended consequences.
Even on an individual basis, drinking cyanide to kill a flu, will be successful but has serious consequences to the patient.
This is why, when a novice is first introduced to an “in service” control panel, he is always sternly commanded to: “keep his hands firmly in his pockets” We just can’t start pushing climatic buttons and pulling CO2 levers, until we predicatively understand the system (tested & validated model). No one is very certain, if we are going to resume warming or begin a new cooling trend. The solar minimum, cooling ocean temps, double dip La Nina – all point ominously and historically to cooling. And yet, you would have us divert much of our resources to additional cooling, decreasing energy, measures? This is not precautionary, it is premature, non-penetration ejaculation. It will not create, but will decrease viability inventory.
How many, 3rd world, malnutrition/starvation deaths due to food (ie corn) for fuel programs, will it take for you to feel secure?? And for what result to temps? GK
JeffG says:
September 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm
… and we know, even without models, that climate sensitivity S is about 3 +/- 1.5 C from studying past climates.
————————–
I imagine you would be surprised to learn that whomever did those studies doesn’t know how to add.
(The actual CO2 and temperature data does not provide a sensitivity estimate other than no correlation).
Bill Illis, I’m sure scientists know how to add.
JeffG says:
September 21, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Bill Illis, I’m sure scientists know how to add.
—————————
Well I imagine that they they do know how to add (when they are not working on climate business).
Its just that what they conclude in their climate papers doesn’t add. Because if they put the true math in, the paper wouldn’t be published and they would be blackballed.
Do the math yourself. 280 ppm 0.0C; 560 ppm 3.0C, 1120 ppm 6.0C, 2240 ppm 9.0C, 4480 ppm 12C. Now take the global temperature estimates over time. Does this math work? No and Nope.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1640/last800klr.png
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/121/tempco215mltor.png
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4927/tempco245mlefttoright.png
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9508/tempco2570mlefttoright.png
Bill: I’m hardly an expert in climate science, but I do know enough to say that Co2 alone does not explain the temperature history of the last 570 million years. There are other big factors at work over that time, such as Milankovich factors, changes in the amount of energy given off by the Sun, and large shifts in tectonic plates. Our planet simply wan’t the same place hundreds of millions of years ago, and common analogies to that period aren’t meaningful. So I don’t see how your graphs apply to today’s situation. Can you explain?
I’ve read some about the Ice Ages, and I’ve never seen anyone explain them with the changes in the energy from the Sun.
Bill: Also, where did you get these pictures?
Bill Illis says:
September 21, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Great graphs. Why not see if Anthony will add them to the menu “Reference Temperature page”.
JeffG:
If the physics holds true for hundreds of million years, and non-correlation (CO2 vs Temps) exists for hundreds of million years, why would you suddenly draw different conclusions to what drives climate. CO2 just doesn’t have the muscle as the graphs clearly show. GK