Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

How the IPCC is more likely to underestimate the climate response

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.

Climate Myth...

IPCC is alarmist
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer)

"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change."

Climate scientist Roy Spencer made this statement. He starts by suggesting something highly questionable isn’t open to being questioned. What he seeks to do is suggest, by inference, that the IPCC has an agenda, and this distorts the reports they produce. In other words, Spencer (and others) suggest that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It is perfectly legitimate to question this assertion, since Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.

Some critics go further, suggesting that the IPCC actively suppresses science that doesn’t support the theory that climate change is being caused by human activities. It is notable this ‘other science’ is rarely produced to support the accusation.

Does the IPCC accurately report the findings of science?

The IPCC was formed to report on a broad range of scientific enquiries into the climate, and our effects on it, and to summarise the science for laypeople. The science they summarise is published so it is simple to compare the primary science with the IPCC reports, and compare both to what actually took place.

There are numerous instances where the IPCC reports, which are summaries of published climate change science, have understated the case - hardly suggesting exaggeration in pursuit of an agenda. Here are some examples:

  • CO2 output from fossil fuels: observed emissions are close to the worst-case projections made by the IPCC, despite them offering a range of potential emission scenarios. (In fact, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years).
     
  • Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted. Actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. By 2100 sea-level rise was predicted by the IPCC to be in the range of 18-59 cm. It is now believed that figure may be far too low, because estimates of contributions from Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps were excluded from AR4 because the data was not considered reliable. (This omission hardly supports the notion that the IPCC seeks to exaggerate global warming trends).
     
  • Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating.
     
  • The body of scientific literature has consistently shown that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more global surface warming than has been observed over the past half century, whereas the IPCC only says that greenhouse gases are responsible for "most" observed warming over this timeframe.

In many similar cases, the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious.

In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported. A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. They found that "...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media".

Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

Last updated on 1 August 2013 by gpwayne. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 121 out of 121:

  1. krisbaum @ 95... Upon a quick read of the paper you cited I can't find any reference even to the atmospheric lifetime or spacial distribution of black carbon.

    I don't think you've read the paper.
  2. krisbaum... I believe if you're talking carbon monoxide aerosols that would be generally accepted as anthropogenic, pretty much without saying. Unless you can think of other large sources of carbon monoxide.
  3. To clarify, as can be seen in this image of various emissions with short dwell times in the atmosphere, they have, as Krisbaum puts it "a very heterogeneous spatial distribution":



    However, just because concentrations are strongest near there source, and fall of rapidly with distance does not mean emissions do not result in significant concentrations hundreds of miles away, or that relatively remote locations will not have sufficient concentration to track changes in emissions. Indeed, if you look at the record for aerosol emissions (center top), you will see that individual cities are not clearly delineated by the concentrations, as would be the case if their typical transit distance was limited to 10 kilometers. In that way, aerosols are different from NO2 (left top), where individual industrial centers are easily delineated. What is more, significant concentrations of aerosols are still found a couple of hundred miles of the coast, again showing the absurdity of the 10 km claim made by Krisbaum.

    So, once again, while Krisbaum purports to have a problem with the IPCC citing Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" on falsification, and Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" on paradigm shifts (just two of the very dubious claims of inadequate literature from Krisbaum's favourite source), he has no problem with citing non-academic websites and simply making "facts" up in support of his argument. Why then do we continue to tolerate his sloganeering? His own words have thoroughly discredited him; as has his refusal to look at the particular use made of particular citations for which he condemns the IPCC.
  4. Rob @101 - page 3 of the report

    Rob @102 - Bushfires for example generate huge amounts of carbon monoxide.
    Response: [DB] You have yet to fulfill the challenges you have assigned yourself in comments 81 and 94 earlier in this thread. You will be held accountable to fulfill those commitments.
  5. krisbaum @ 104... Ummm... No. Just read page three and there is nothing there that talks about the atmospheric lifetime or spacial distribution of black carbon. They discuss accumulation over time. There is certainly nothing there to support your 10 km statement.
  6. Tom@103 I was talking bout anthropogenic aerosols not emissions. Why post a diagram of CO, CH4 etc when they are NOT aerosols?
  7. krisbaum @ 104... And so you think that the large spacial distribution of CO presented in DB's gif is... bush fires? Maybe I've not been watching the news closely enough. Are there massive bush fires occurring in Beijing and Tianjin?
  8. @Rob 105

    'Anthropogenic atmospheric aerosols are believed to be a significant climate forcing
    agent, probably second only to greenhouse gases in their effect on global temperature in the past
    century [Houghton et al., 2001]. However, the history of atmospheric aerosols is not nearly as
    well known as that of most gases because of the short atmospheric lifetime of aerosols and thus
    their very heterogeneous spatial distribution. Moreover, the climate effect of aerosols is
    complex, as some aerosols cause cooling while others are believed to cause warming.' page 3.
  9. Rob @107 - CO is not an aerosol.
  10. krisbaum @ 109... We are clearly not looking at the same paper. You said the title of the paper was, "Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols."

    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/July-2004/Historical-changes.pdf
  11. krisbaum @106, I explicitly referred you to the top center image for the discussion of aerosols. You will notice that it is labelled "AOT", standing for Aerosol Optical Thickness.

    There are certain minimum standards of conduct necessary for any rational discussion - honesty, consistent standards for your self and others, a willingness to cite relevant information etc. You have shown yourself consistently unwilling to abide by any such standard. Consequently my discussion with you is over.

    Until you undertake to show why it was reprehensible of the IPCC to cite Agassiz as the originator of the theory of ice ages; or to cite Newton's letter to Hooke in 1675 as the source of the famous quotation about standing on the shoulders of giants (two more of the supposedly dubious citations according to your favourite source), or admit that the quality of citations cannot be determined simply by looking at the immediate source and that your favourite source used a massively flawed methodology which is completely unable to justify the conclusions you, and they draw from it, there is nothing more to say.
  12. It is duly noted that krisbaum blatantly is ignoring the tasks he has given himself in 81 and 94. Just as he ignored the text description for the animated GIF found on the host page:
    "The animation below shows the fire activity and smoke plumes in Russia and China in June/July 2012 and the consecutive transport of smoke across the Pacific. The MACC GFAS assimilation of Fire Radiative Power observations are superimposed over the combined organic matter and black carbon fields in the MACC global aerosol assimilation, which combines the smoke emissions calculated in GFAS with inventories of anthropogenic emissions and aerosol optical depth observations from space. Both types of observations are performed by the satellite-based MODIS instruments and NASA has provided the observation data."
    Also note that aerosols travel enormous distances across continents and oceans. And note that they are not evenly-mixed or distributed, unlike CO2:


    [Source]
  13. Very interesting, there are actually two different versions of this paper. The one that krisbaum cites includes the sentence about short atmospheric lifetime, etc. The version I found was published in GRL specifically has that line deleted.

    It looks to me like kris is citing from (maybe) a pre-press version of the paper (?). I find it interesting that that line was removed.
  14. This has to be the most pointless discussion I've encountered in several years, and that includes the engagement with Tim Curtin at OM, the SLoT thread, and everything Dan H has started at RC.

    What will be the ultimate bottom line if krisbaum is correct in feeling misled by Pachauri? Would it mean anything where WG1, WG2, or WG3 are concerned? And although it's probably against comment policy, I'll wager krisbaum has no problem with (-Snip-), and those are much more damaging than anything Pachauri has to say about bloody grey literature (as one can see from the variety of mainstream media outlets that are seemingly plugged directly into WUWT).
    Response: [DB] Comments policy violation snipped.
  15. DSL does have a point. Krisbaum, the figure of 10km is not only arbitrary, it's also ludicrous and baseless. None of the papers you have referred to can allow to support this number. It is obvious you made it up on the moment to serve your argument. I see nothing in your various arguments that deseves any consideration and I'm done wasting my time on them.
  16. 'Greenland aerosol measurements tell you nothing, it is fairly common knowledge that aerosols do not travel far from their source typically 10km or so. You need localised measurements to get any kind of global pattern.'

    It is fairly obvious from recent discussions that my quotation above still applies, everbody is correct in disputing '10km' - as an arbitrary number like this, argue you may but the point still stands that (-Snip-).
    Response:

    [DB] It is very obvious from recent discussions that your quotation above is still invalid. The intercontinental reach & dispersion of aerosols has been amply demonstrated.

    Either finish your homework from comments 81 and 94 above or cede those points by declaring your position invalid.

    Off-topic diversion snipped.

  17. krisbaum, I'm not going to immediately discard your claim. I do, however, want to see some evidence. What you claim is not common knowledge.

    Here's a study that casts doubt on what you say just from the abstract. The study measures the 72 hour trajectory of a cloud of SO2 that extends 1600 meters from the surface. If the mass of SO2 travels for 72 hours and only goes 10km, that means it is traveling at the extremely fast rate of about 139 meters per hour. Possible, but not probable.

    This study worries about an oil refinery being built 30km away from the Taj Mahal and what the emissions will do to the structure. Why did they even perform the study? It's common knowledge that human-sourced aerosols only travel 10km.

    These were just two of the first few on google scholar. I can do more of your work for you if you require it.
  18. DSL;

    My original assertion about aerosols was to do with a lack of records pertaining to their levels - hence the high amount of high uncertainty in their values. [Anthropogenic] Aerosols are concentrated at their source and depending on their type (eg. Sulphates or Black Carbon etc) - they travel varied distances from their source but a geo-spacial representation of their concentrations in the atmosphere is required to estimate their impact on climate change.
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, your original assertion about aerosols was made here and was this:

    "Has anybody actually investigated further, for example the findings on Aerosols and why the IPCC believe what the range of aersol forcing is thats stated in their 4AR?"

    You did not make the assertion about aerosols that you claim until 4 ½ hours later, here.

  19. (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] This has gone on long enough. As has been noted several times already, finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above. You will be allowed no further podium to waste the time of others here until that work is completed.

    Argumentative and sloganeering snipped.

  20. [finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above.]

    I just did and you deleted them.
    Response: [DB] Comments deleted were due to inflammatory/ad hominem comments and sloganeering. You continually focus on newspaper accounts of what Pachauri is reputed to have said. You continue to fail to show (from 81) where the IPCC has stated that it only bases its work on peer-reviewed literature. It is clear you posture.
  21. A final comment on the dispersion of sulfates.

    Fiedler et al, 2009 discuss the observation of a SO2 pollution plume just of the west coast of Ireland. That pollution plume came from China. In fact, it was not the only plume they found at that location. They found another, lower plume from North America as well, as shown in this diagram:



    You will notice the Chinese plume has approximately half the concentration North American Plume. Its greater altitude and thickness, however, suggests it would have greater than half the cooling effect of the North American plume. This suggests that it would make an appreciable impact on the atmospheric energy balance at that time and location.

    Below is a modeled distribution of Chinese SO2 based on known weather patterns at the time of observation. Again, notice that the concentration of SO2 in the plume is only around 40% of that over China, again signifying an appreciable impact on the energy balance:



    Despite the high concentration of the plume half way around the world, occurrences of plumes from China at that location would be sporadic, whereas the plume over China itself would be constant throughout the year. As a result, averaged over the year, concentrations over China would be large compared to those over the North Atlantic. But that in no way justifies Krisbaum's rather silly claims, and it certainly does not justify his supposition that SO2 concentrations in Greenland ice cores are a poor proxy of SO2 emissions over Europe and North America.

    As we have seen, there is no question that SO2 plumes can be carried more than half way around the world - let alone half way across the world's narrowest ocean to Greenland.
  22. Hi all,


    This may be a dumb question, but I'm wondering if someone could clear up my confusion about the rate of change in CO2 concentrations we're seeing today vs. the rate at which they've varied in the past.


    In this video, Michael Mann states that the rates today are changing a million times faster than what we've seen in the past, but this article above states that "atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years."

    Thanks for your help,

    Andrew

  23. Woops, forgot the link: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/05/michael-mann-hockey-stick-climate-desk-live

  24. Tough to say, Andrewii.  While it's true that CO2 hasn't increased as rapidly as present in at least 300 million years, it would take some selectivity to make the math come out right on "1,000,000 times faster."  For example, we could find a period where CO2 advanced 120ppm over the course of 150,000,000 years.  Such a period might be found if one used the right analysis (e.g COPSE).  Then one could say, "We've put up 120ppm in 150 years, one million times as fast as in period x."  Or one could go the other route and find a much shorter period with a much more neutral trend. Without knowing the comparison period, it's hard to say what Mann is referring to.

    It's hard to be alarmist with the rate of CO2.  As Honisch et al. point out, it's possible there's no precedent for the current rate of increase.

  25. Andrewwii, when studying climate topics and associated facts, try not to view or read individual statements out of the larger context (note also that the video is pasted together from a longer one). It is easy to cherry-pick a single statement taken out of context and get confused by it, or even take it to mean somebody is dishonest or similar.

    In this particular case, we are talking about a rise from a preindustrial level of 280 ppm to today's 400 ppm in roughly 200 years (average 1.2 ppm per year, accelerating; currently 2 ppm/yr). In that video, Michael Mann refers to the last time the CO2 level was that high (several million years ago) and how much time it took then to change average levels by roughly as much (e.g. by 100 ppm), "10s of millions of years" (long-term average data here). Taking an average slope (ppm CO2 change over time) from that graph over the last 100 million of years gives roughly 10 ppm/million years ((1300-300) / 100), so about a 5th to a 10th of a million times as fast as today. If you take a shorter period, say only the last 30 million years, the slope is less, nearly matching what Mann referred to.

    So you see, it is easy to accuse him of saying something wrong. Human nature. It is more difficult though to stand back, look at the bigger picture, ask a clarifying question if possible, and avoid taking things out of context. So thanks for asking.

  26. andrewii

    This article discusses the findings by Lee Kump and colleagues wrt the rate of inctrease of CO2 during the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, around 55 million years ago.

    PETM CO2

    This period is considered a reasonable analogue for today. The world was originally warmer than today by perhaps 4-6 DegC, then it experienced a doubling or more of CO2 very quickly (in geological time scales). Temps climbed another 4-6  DegC, a small Extinction event occurred and an Anoxic event occcurred in the ocean.

    Kump et al found that CO2 levels today are climbing 10 times faster than during the PETM.

  27. Thanks DSL, gws and Glenn Tamblyn!

  28. I'd like to suggest a subject for a future post:

    IPCC figures are virtually all limited to 2100. And all IPCC scenarios assume some emmission curbing at some point (ranging from slow to fast). That's unrealistally optimistic at this point, since there are no signs of leaving carbon reserves unexplored and buried undergound. They're even exploring new possibilities in hydrocarbons (like methane clathrate), and looking for new oil reserves (like in the Arctic).

    If we burn every reserve we know, this paper below projects a 16 ºC warming eventually, making "much of the planet uninhabitable by humans".

    "Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide"

    Hansen et al. 2013

Prev  1  2  3  

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us