From the Carnegie Institution and the mind of Ken Caldeira, comes this “back to the future” style impossible to verify prediction (at least impossible now). Of course, in model-world and Hollywood, anything is provable possible.
Climate change: Fast out of the gate, slow to the finish the gate
Washington, D.C.— A great deal of research has focused on the amount of global warming resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But there has been relatively little study of the pace of the change following these increases. A new study by Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira and Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures concludes that about half of the warming occurs within the first 10 years after an instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase. Their work is published in Environmental Research Letters.
The study was the result of an unusual collaboration of a climate scientist, Ken Caldeira, who contributed to the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and Nathan Myhrvold, the founder and CEO of a technology corporation, Intellectual Ventures LLC. It is the third paper on which they have collaborated
The study brings together results from the majority of the world’s leading climate models. Caldeira and Myhrvold analyzed more than 50 climate simulations, which were performed using 20 different climate models for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5).
They found a fairly high degree of consensus on the general character of the pace of climate change. In response to an instantaneous increase in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is fast out of the starting gate but then slows down, and takes a long time to approach the finish line.
There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models, however. For example, one model reaches 38 percent of the maximum warming in the first decade after a step increase in CO2 concentration, while another model reaches 61 percent of the maximum warming in this time period. Similarly, one model reaches only 60 percent of maximum warming in the first century after the step increase, while another achieves 86 percent of maximum warming during this interval.
There is also substantial uncertainty in the ultimate amount of warming that would result from any given increase in atmospheric CO2 content. The most sensitive model predicts more than twice as much warming as the least-sensitive model.
Uncertainty in the amount of warming combines with uncertainty in the pace of warming. From an instantaneous doubling of atmospheric CO2 content from the pre-industrial base level, some models would project 2°C (3.6°F) of global warming in less than a decade while others would project that it would take more than a century to achieve that much warming.
“While there is substantial uncertainty in both the pace of change and the ultimate amounts of warming following an increase in greenhouse gas concentration,” Caldeira said, “there is little uncertainty in the basic outlook. If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter. If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”
The authors acknowledge the World Climate Research Program’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling, which is responsible for CMIP.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, it’s dern easy for them boys to get spatial and temporal confoozed. All them fancy concepts…
Sounds like to me the heat is hiding in the models.
This is beyond moving the goalpost. This is like when two 5 yo kids play cards and the one who’s dealing makes up the rules as they go in order for him/her to win every time.
They are becoming increasingly desperate in their search for the missing heat. We had a warm spring in Australia, perhaps the heat in on holiday at Bondi Beach. Well, it makes about as much sense as the above posting.
MrX-
You mean like Fizbin?
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Where’d it go? Oh, ya, into the deep ocean. Right.
The article provides so little information that nothing can be made of it. Are they modeling the effect of CO2 alone? Have the done the “forcings and feedbacks” calculations involving clouds, water vapor, and other possible negative feedbacks? How does the logarithmic curve for CO2 affect matters? And on and on.
I really find this sort of thing offensive. All they are doing is playing with models. They should say that. But, No, they claim that they have learned something about CO2 and global warming. Nonsense.
Do you know where the “90% of the warming is going into the oceans” came from?
It came from Church and White 2011 and is only the percentage of the Red and Purple areas versus the Red, Purple and Green areas in this chart. Completely ignoring the 78% of the other areas in the chart. In other words, pure spin designed to mislead everyone.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/church_2011.jpg
Paper here.
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2012-0229-200953/2011GL048794.pdf
The “line” went over so well with the followers that the rest of the climate science community decided to join in on the deception.
It used to be the rapidness of the warming that made global warming so devastating to species that couldn’t adapt quickly enough.
So, it’s not as bad as we thought?
Well, I think they proved that the modelers have quite a ways to go before we should put much faith in models’ output.
“If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.””
And kill hundreds of millions in the process. Nice they wish for that, or is that their desire?
BTW, if the name is familiar:
http://www.intellectualventures.com/index.php/about/leadership/nathan-myhrvold says in part:
Nathan Myhrvold founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring from his position as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation. At Intellectual Ventures, Myhrvold is focused on a variety of business interests relating to the funding, creation and commercialization of inventions.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/30/intellectual-ventures-nathan-myhrvold-defends-patent-trolling/ says in part:
Intellectual Ventures’ CEO and founder Nathan Myhrvold, who previously spent some 14 years at Microsoft Research, took the stage here at D10, and as predicted, his interview with Walt Mossberg was quite the invigorating one. You may know the man and his company for its vicious patent trolling — or, what appears to be patent trolling. In essence, a lot of its business comes from acquiring patent portfolios, and then licensing and / or suing companies to “enforce” them. Naturally, Nathan has a radically different perspective than most sane individuals on the matter, insisting that the system isn’t necessarily broken, and that “making money from enforcing patents is no more wrong than investing in preferred stock.”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/1853298215.shtml says in part:
Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures Using Over 1,000 Shell Companies To Hide Patent Shakedown
from the incredibly-lame dept
It’s no secret that we think Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures is a dangerous, innovation harming monstrosity. The company used a bait and switch scheme to get a bunch of big tech companies to fund it, not realizing that they were then going to be targets of his shakedown system. Basically, IV buys up (or in some cases, applies for) tons of patents, and then demands huge cash outlays from those same companies (often hundreds of millions of dollars) for a combined promise not to sue over those patents and (here’s the sneaky bit) a bit of a pyramid scheme, where those in early supposedly get a cut of later deals. Of course, to just talk to IV requires strict NDAs, so the details of these deals are kept under wraps and only leaked out anonymously. But the hundreds of millions of dollars going towards this sort of trolling behavior, rather than any actual innovation in the marketplace can be seen on various financial filings (you can’t hide hundreds of millions of dollars in payments that easily).
Now, for years, Myhrvold tried to avoid the term “patent troll,” by claiming that IV had never actually sued anyone. Two years ago, though, it seemed clear that the company was on the verge of breaking out the lawsuits. However, the company still hasn’t been directly linked to a lawsuit. Late last year, though, some eagle-eyed reporters noticed that IV patents were showing up in lawsuits, but those lawsuits were from different companies. Reading between the lines, it became clear that IV had decided to protect its brand name by getting other companies or creating those companies itself, giving the patent to those other companies that no one had ever heard of, and having them sue. This is a very common practice among patent hoarders. They set up shell companies for their lawsuits, that often make it difficult to track back who actually owns what patents. It’s all a shell game to extort more money.
ntesdorf says:
“perhaps the heat in on holiday at Bondi Beach. ”
Well it certainly hasn’t made it into the water down here yet. Still very much “spanner” water !
It’s nice though, once you go numb !!!
There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models….
no there isn’t…they are all wrong
http://principia-scientific.org/images/graph_revealing_the_divergence_of_models_from_the_actual_evidence.jpg
There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models…
no there isn’t….and they are all wrong
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
If I was a reviewer, and I was feeling vindictive, I would then ask them how they might go about calculating one of those various “climate sensitivities” that are bandied about like they might mean something in the real world.
Why can’t any one fess up to the fact that the human induced global warming is being caused by our population increase and land use changes. What do you think miles and miles of brick homes, all radiating heat, with paved roads, will do to temperatures? The only solution is to raze all the cities and suburbs and let all that land return to it’s natural state. Guess that won’t happen but we can save the planet by paying more money to our governments.
There’s that reversible thermodynamic process again.
Climate models cannot correctly HIND-cast historic temperatures. Their guesses about the future are, thus, pure, UNSUPPORTED, CONJECTURE.
“…climate models show no skill whatsoever at hindcasting — which means climate models FAIL, for they are not realistic, not even for the last few decades.” (Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale (2013) at 14)
“That the models cannot hindcast the early (1914-1945) rise in global surface temperatures shows that global surface temperatures can warm due to causes other than the forcings (human and natural) programmed into the climate models.” (Ibid at 151.)
*******************************************
Read your doom, IPCC:
CO2 UP — TEMPERATURE DOWN.
******************************************
Re: “… about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase… .” (from the above model-centric Introduction to Science report that got a grade of “F”)
There is no evidence for this, only conjecture that flies in the face of what is known about CO2 LAGGING TEMPERATURE INCREASES — by a quarter cycle.
This is blatant damage control v. a v. Dr. Murry Salby (and others)’s findings. Apparently, the April 18, 2013 Hamburg lecture posted on youtube HIT THE TARGET. KA-POW! Thus, they bring in the “quarter” — an amateurish attempt to confuse the ignorant public (exactly the same as marketing brand confusion by naming one’s product something similar-but-not-the-same to TRICK THE PUBLIC INTO BUYING ONE’S PRODUCT).
And, just to put the TRUTH out there, once again, here is:
Dr. Murry Salby explaining what data
(not programmer-forced models) say about CO2 being
closely correlated with temperature
delayed by a quarter cycle.
“The only solution is to raze all the cities and suburbs and let all that land return to it’s natural state.”
No, that’s silly. The problem is quite obviously McDonald’s. As a matter of feeding cattle there are untold acres of land that are routinely laid bare. Both by direct grazing and harvesting during the hottest portions of the year. This reduces albedo and as well as the metabolic activity of plants to capture energy from the sun. Some people, just as strangely as arguing against concrete, argue that we should strictly curtail the use of plant food. When the obvious conclusion is that we need to enact bovine-taxes and create beef-credit exchanges.
Though, if we’re interested in a more targeted solution we can combat both the direct destruction of the planet as well as the two-fer that ensues from obesity by consideration of sin-taxes levied McDonald’s as well as all other convenient food outlets that sell directly to consumers. This option is desirable in that it develops a narrowly tailored planetary use-tax. This mechanism is compassionately progressive in that the impoverished hardly consume food products to begin with. The less impoverished are able to self-tailor their asceticism to offset their planetary burdens. And the rich can purchase indulgences against their profligacy to mitigate the harm they cause by funding vegetarian outreach and starvation education programs.
@ur momisugly Ric Werme (re: yours at 5:48pm) Ah, HA! Then that use of the “quarter” term to confuse was highly likely to be intentional. What a scumbag.
Oooo, those liars infuriate me (and my typing, too!) — “highly likely intentional.”
MrX
“This is like when two 5 yo kids play cards and the one who’s dealing makes up the rules as they go in order for him/her to win every time”.
Yeah and my brother had a technique where he would take first position sitting opposite the window, and I would sit in front of the window with my back to it; I always wondered why he would often look out the window behind me until I noticed you could see the reflection of the faces of my cards in the window behind me.
Yeah, JQuip (heh, and, NOT so “heh,” too) — nice wit — and in the Philippines (?) you can name your restaurant “MacJoy’s” and confuse the public into eating at your place (in trademark infringement case, I think MacJoy got away with it). Call such a strategy: “A Myhrvold.”
As to the study: I don’t think there’s anything either shocking or new here about the basic notion. Given the basic issues involved with heat transfer and the crust, this is entirely expected to some degree. Nothing more than a basic logarithm when approaching or departing an equilibrium point.
The difference in the curve between models doesn’t really speak to this however. As a wide variety in the change over time for ‘all causes’ is not the same as a wide variety between them for a specific cause. That said, if the model have such a large disagreement amongst themselves about the basic grey-body considerations of the Earth is a rather strong demonstration of at least one of the following:
a) Climate guys have no clue what’s going on.
b) Climate guys aren’t discarding the absurdly wrong models.