Climate Models: Components & Evolution
Climate models include numerous elements of Earth's climate
system, such as clouds, rainfall, sunlight, sea ice, oceans,
evaporation, and so on.
These diagrams depict the evolution of
climate models, and the features included in them, over the years.
Early models (in the 1970s) were relatively simple; they used just
a few key features (incoming sunlight, rainfall, and
CO 2 concentration) to represent Earth's climate
system. Models grew more sophisticated over time, incorporating
clouds, land surface features, ice, and other elements into their
calculations. Simple oceans were included in models beginning
around the time of the IPCC's First Assessment Report (FAR) in the
early 1990s; later models include more complex representations of
oceans. Current climate models include clouds, a broader range of
atmospheric constituents ( sulphates, aerosols,
etc.) and atmospheric
chemistry, vegetation that exchanges gases with the atmosphere,
and other features. The FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4 labels on the
diagrams indicate the models in use at the times of each of the
four IPCC Assessment Reports.
|
The image below illustrates the many components of a modern
climate model, in this case NCAR's Community Climate System
Model (CCSM).
Components of a modern climate model -
NCAR's Community Climate System Model. The various components are
described below.
Credits: Image
courtesy of UCAR; illustration by Paul Grabhorn.
|
- Cirrus clouds
- These high, thin, icy clouds act as a warming influence on
climate overall, because they allow sunlight in but trap long-wave
radiation rising from Earth’s heated surface. The CCSM depicts
these and other clouds
throughparameterization - tracking the
conditions that form such clouds and then specifying how much of a
given rectangle of land in the model grid is covered by each cloud
type.
- Stratus clouds
- These low, dense, very reflective clouds act as a cooling
influence on climate overall, because they reflect a great deal of
sunlight. Subtropical oceans often feature huge areas of marine
stratocumulus. The CCSM depicts these and other clouds
through parameterization - tracking the
conditions that form such clouds and then specifying how much of a
given rectangle of land in the model grid is covered by each cloud
type.
- Cumulus clouds
- These puffy clouds, which sometimes build in tower-like
formations, are linked to strong updrafts and the showers and
thunderstorms that result. Cumulus are difficult to represent in
models because each cloud covers only a small part of Earth’s
surface, but when taken together, cumulus clouds have a large
influence on global circulation. The CCSM depicts these and other
clouds through parameterization -
tracking the conditions that form such clouds and then specifying
how much of a given rectangle of land in the model grid is covered
by each cloud type.
- Precipitation and evaporation
- The process of converting water vapor to water droplets or
snowflakes releases heat into the atmosphere. The CCSM simulates
this process, as well as the evaporation of water from soil,
wetlands, lakes, and oceans and the amount of rain or snow reaching
the surface.
- Sea ice
- Sea ice helps keep polar regions cold, because it reflects most
of the sunlight that hits it. When sea ice melts, it does not raise
sea level directly (because the ice is already afloat, like a
melting ice cube in a glass of water). However, the dark surface
ocean exposed by melting sea ice absorbs most of the sunlight it
receives, which leads to further warming. Research using the CCSM
indicates that Arctic summertime sea ice may diminish greatly, as
soon as the 2030s.
- Winds
- One of the main elements of a climate model is its depiction of
winds. The global circulation transports warm air poleward and cold
air toward the equator. This flow operates through several
persistent loops that produce trade winds in the tropics, westerly
winds at midlatitudes, and easterlies across the poles. The actual
winds at any one spot are influenced by day-to-day weather as well
as climate cycles such as El Niño. Where winds converge, rising
motion and rain or snow may develop.
- Heat and salinity exchange
- Because water has a higher heat capacity than soil, it takes
longer for sea surfaces to warm up or cool down relative to the
continents. Climate models must account for the transfer of heat
between ocean and atmosphere. They also need to reflect changes in
salinity (salt content) that occur as ocean water evaporates, or as
fresh water enters the oceans through increased rainfall or
increased glacial melting.
- Atmospheric model layers
- Contrasts in temperature and wind are much stronger vertically
than horizontally. Only a few miles above ground, temperatures are
usually frigid (even in summer), and winds may howl at 200 miles
per hour (320 kilometers per hour) or more. The CCSM divides the
atmosphere into 26 layers, tracking each layer as well as exchanges
of energy and moisture between layers. Near the ground, where
vertical contrasts are strongest, the layers (which are defined by
atmospheric pressure) can be as thin as 1,000 feet (about 300
meters) or less.
- Ocean currents, temperature, and salinity
- The behavior of the ocean is much more difficult to observe
than the atmosphere, and many ocean processes are still poorly
understood. As recently as the 1990s, most climate models used a
“slab” ocean—one that behaves as a single unit. Today, the CCSM and
other sophisticated models include a much more dynamic depiction of
the ocean that tracks changes in ocean currents, temperature, and
salinity. These control such phenomena as the North Atlantic’s
overturning circulation, which helps keep Europe warm for its
latitude but which may be sensitive to climate change.
- Ocean model layers
- Much like the atmosphere, the ocean needs to be divided into
several layers in order for a model to accurately depict the
three-dimensional flow and other qualities. The CCSM includes 40
ocean layers, ranging in thickness from about 33 feet (10 meters)
near the sea surface to about 800 feet (250 meters) in the deep
ocean.
- Ocean bottom topography
- In order to accurately depict the ocean circulation in three
dimensions, the CCSM includes undersea ridges, valleys, and other
topographic features of the ocean bottom.
- Vertical overturning
- Most of the world’s oceans outside the Arctic feature a
relatively warm sea surface and a thin region called
a thermocline that separates the warm
surface layer from colder, deeper waters. In some parts of the
world, colder and deeper water regularly crosses the thermocline to
mix with warmer surface waters, or vice versa. The CCSM can
simulate these overturning processes.
- Realistic geography
- Large mountain chains exert a major influence on temperature,
precipitation, and wind patterns for miles around. Even when
mountains are relatively modest in size or extent, they play an
important role in local climate. Early climate models tracked the
atmosphere at points separated by hundreds of miles, so mountain
ranges appeared in highly smoothed form. The CCSM and other
contemporary models operate at higher resolution so the topography
is much less smoothed.
- Land surface processes
- The atmosphere is strongly affected by what lies beneath it -
forests, deserts, ice sheets, mountains, and grasslands. The CCSM
includes each of these elements, tracking the exchange of energy
and moisture between them and the atmosphere. Urban areas are not
yet depicted in the standard version of the CCSM or other global
climate models, although work is under way to add them.
- Soil moisture
- Moisture stored near and just below ground level affects how
much rain and snow can be absorbed by the soil and how quickly a
region dries out if precipitation slackens. The CCSM includes a
depiction of moisture in 10 soil layers.
- Outgoing heat energy
- Virtually all of the energy that reaches our planet from the
Sun leaves the Earth system in one form or another. In order to
keep their simulation of Earth’s climate in proper balance, the
CCSM and other climate models account for this outgoing
radiation.
- Incoming solar energy
- To create an accurate portrayal of Earth’s climate, the CCSM
calculates the amount of incoming solar radiation by location, time
of day, and time of year. When reproducing past climates, the model
can also include estimates of solar variability based on sunspot
counts, carbon dating of organic material, and other indirect
evidence.
- Transition from solid to vapor
- Besides melting, snowpacks can erode through a process
called sublimation, in which moisture
goes directly from ice crystals to water vapor in the atmosphere.
Sublimation is common in dry mountain climates, where a snowpack
may leave little or no water behind as it shrinks (even in
temperatures below freezing). The CCSM depicts sublimation as well
as snowmelt.
- Evaporative and heat energy exchanges
- When water evaporates, it draws heat from the lakes, rivers, or
oceans from which it came and stores that heat within its molecular
bonds. Heat can also leave the land and ocean surface directly
through contact between the surface and molecules in the atmosphere
(a process called conduction). The CCSM
depicts these and other processes that move heat energy around the
Earth system.
- Snow cover
- Large areas of snow have a major effect on weather. Because of
their light color, they reflect large amounts of sunlight and help
keep temperatures colder than they would otherwise be, especially
close to the ground. The CCSM tracks the seasonal waxing and waning
of snowfall across mountainous and high-latitude areas. The large
ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are also included. Some of
the processes that control ice sheets are still being studied by
scientists and are not yet part of the CCSM and other global
models.
- Runoff
- A key part of the global water cycle is the flow of water from
rivers, lakes, and land areas down toward the sea. The CCSM depicts
runoff more precisely than earlier models, which enhances its
treatment of the water cycle overall.
Last modified: 29 November
2010
Created: 29 November 2010
Source:http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/modeling/climate_model_components_evolution.html
Climate
Models
Excerpts from:
Climate Models and Their Evaluation, In: Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis, Chapters 8 and 10
Ch
8 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
Ch
10 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
website: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
What are climate
models?
Climate models use quantitative methods
to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land
surface, and ice. They are used for a variety of purposes from
study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to
projections of future climate. All climate models balance, or very
nearly balance, incoming energy as short wave electromagnetic
radiation (visible and ultraviolet) to the earth with outgoing
energy as long wave (infrared) electromagnetic radiation from the
earth. Any imbalance results in a change in the average temperature
of the
earth.
There have been major advances in the
development and use of models over the last 20 years and the
current models give us a reliable guide to the direction of future
climate change. Computer models cannot predict the future exactly,
due to the large number of uncertainties involved. The models are
based mainly on the laws of physics, but also empirical techniques
which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in
cloud formation. The most sophisticated computer models simulate
the entire climate system. As well as linking the atmosphere and
ocean, they also capture the interactions between the various
elements, such as ice and land
(CRU).
Climate models have been used
successfully to reproduce the main features of the current climate;
the temperature changes over the last hundred years, and the main
features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum
(21,000) years ago. Current models enable us to attribute the
causes of past climate change, and predict the main features of the
future climate, with a high degree of confidence
(CRU).
The most talked-about models of recent
years have been those relating temperature to emissions of carbon
dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). These models project an
upward trend in the surface temperature record, as well as a more
rapid increase in temperature at higher
altitudes.
Coupled atmosphere-ocean general
circulation models
(AOGCMs)
(e.g. MIROC3.2(medres), CSIRO-MK3.0, UKMO-HadCM3)

Climate models
are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of
physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To “run” a model, scientists
divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic
equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate
winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface
hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with
neighboring
points.
From:
NOAA http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html
AOGCMs combine the
two general circulation models, atmospheric and ocean. They thus
have the advantage of removing the need to specify fluxes across
the interface of the ocean surface. These models are the basis for
sophisticated model predictions of future climate, such as are
discussed by the IPCC. AOGCMs represent the pinnacle of complexity
in climate models and internalize as many processes as possible.
They are the only tools that could provide detailed regional
predictions of future climate change. However, they are still under
development. The simpler models are generally susceptible to simple
analysis and their results are generally easy to understand.
AOGCMs, by contrast, are often nearly as hard to analyze as the
real climate system (Randall,
2007).
Atmosphere-Ocean
General Circulation Models are able to simulate extreme warm
temperatures, cold air outbreaks and frost days reasonably well.
Models used in Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 2007) for projecting
tropical cyclone changes are able to simulate present day frequency
and distribution of cyclones, but intensity is less well simulated.
Simulation of extreme precipitation is dependent on resolution,
parameterization, and the thresholds chosen. In general, models
tend to produce too many days with weak precipitation (<10 mm
day–1) and too little precipitation overall in intense events
(>10 mm day–1) (Randall,
2007).
The large-scale
patterns of seasonal variation in several important atmospheric
fields are now better simulated by AOGCMs than they were at the
time of the Third Assessment Report (TAR 2001). Notably, errors in
simulating the monthly mean, global distribution of precipitation,
sea level pressure and surface air temperature have all decreased.
In some models, simulation of marine low-level clouds, which are
important for correctly simulating sea surface temperature and
cloud feedback in a changing climate, has also improved.
Nevertheless, important deficiencies remain in the simulation of
clouds and tropical precipitation (with their important regional
and global impacts) (Randall,
2007).
Since the TAR,
developments in AOGCM formulation have improved the representation
of large-scale variability over a wide range of time scales. The
models capture the dominant extratropical patterns of variability
including the Northern and Southern Annular Modes, the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, the Pacific-North American and Cold Ocean-Warm
Land Patterns. AOGCMs simulate Atlantic multi-decadal variability,
although the relative roles of high- and low-latitude processes
appear to differ between models. In the tropics, there has been an
overall improvement in the AOGCM simulation of the spatial pattern
and frequency of ENSO, but problems remain in simulating its
seasonal phase locking and the asymmetry between El Niño and La
Niña episodes (Randall,
2007).
How Reliable Are
the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate
Change?
Excerpt from: Frequently Asked Question 8.1.Climate Models and
Their Evaluation, In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis, Chapter 8, pages
600-601.
There is considerable confidence that climate
models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate
change, particularly at continental scales and above. This
confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted
physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed
features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in
model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g.,
temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several
decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust
and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response
to increasing greenhouse gases (Randall,
2007).

Global mean near-surface
temperatures over the 20th century
from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations
produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and
human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of
all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature
anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical
grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure
adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5, IPCC 2007: Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Refer to corresponding caption for
further
details.)
Supporting
Documentation
Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman,
T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J.
Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffer, A. Sumi and K.E. Taylor, 2007: Climate
Models and Their Evaluation. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning,
Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and
H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P.
Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M.
Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and
Z.-C. Zhao, 2007: Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY,
USA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
IPCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996
pp.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
IPCC, 2007: Summary for
Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland, 104
pp.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
IPCC, 2000:
Emissions Scenarios. Nebojsa Nakicenovic and Rob Swart (Eds.),
Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 570. Available from Cambridge
University Press, The Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road,
Cambridge CB2 2RU
ENGLAND
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.htm
Archive for the ‘refuting the skeptics’
Category
Thursday, January 20th, 2011
Year 2010 surface air temperature observations around west and
south Greenland are unprecedented in the instrumental record. Year
2010 and year 2003 temperatures dwarf high yearly averages
occurring in the 1920s and 1930s.
Warming and Cooling
Fig. 1. 170 years of annually resolved
whole Greenland ice sheet averaged surface air temperature from a
reconstruction driven by a statistical fusion of long term
meteorological station data with calibrated regional climate data
assimilation model output (Box et al. 2009). A pink circle denotes
the record setting year 2010 value.The thick gray line is a 31 year
two-tailed Gaussian-weighted smoothing of the annual values. As the
"boxcar" gets within 15 years of the beginning and end of the
series, the "tail" that runs into the end of the series is cut off
and the weighting shifts accordingly.
Over the full 171 years (1840-2010) of the reconstruction, the
ice sheet average surface air temperature increased 1.26 C. The
warming rate was 0.74 C/century. The recent 17 year Greenland ice
sheet warming rate is 30% smaller in magnitude than a 17 year
period in the 1920s. The intervening 63 year period (1932 to 1992)
was cooling at -0.19 C/decade. This cooling can be attributed
to a cooling phase of theAtlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (e.g.
Schesinger et al. 1994; Trenberth et al. 2006). Cold episodes in
1983-84 and 1991-92 enhance this cooling trend and are caused
primarily by major volcanic eruptions (see Box,
2002) . West Greenland is a focus of sulfate aerosol-induced
cooling (see Box et al. 2009). Another contributor to the 1932 to
1992 cooling is global dimming, that is,
cooling at the surface induced by increases
in atmospheric aerosols. Liepert et al (2002) estimated that there
was globally a reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching
the ground between 1961 and 1990. The Wikipedia Global Dimming article is worth
reading. The recent (post-1994) warming, is attributable to:
1.) a growing absence of sulfate cooling because there has not
been a major volcanic eruption since 1991; 2)
recent warming phase of AMO; 3) an
apparent reversal of
the global dimming trend; and 4) ongoing and
intensifying anthropogenic global warming (AWG),
the elephant in the room, owing to
a dominance of enhanced greenhouse effect
despite other anthropogenic cooling factors such as aerosols and
contrails (IPCC, 2007). The primary factor responsible for the
warming trend is very likely to be AWG (IPCC,
2007).
Fig. 2. Three long term Greenland
meteorological station records, illustrating the long term time
series of yearly-average temperatures. Triangles denote record
setting values coinciding in 2010. Also interesting to note is the
strong 1983-1984 El Chichon volcanic cooling (see Box 2002).
Refuting Denial
It is scientific to question if year 2010 record setting
temperatures are real or due to some spurious aspect of the
measurements. Former television meteorologist Anthony Watts, for
one, expended quite a lot of effort to discredit apparent record setting 2010
temperatures in Nuuk, Greenland. However, Watts seems in error,
as one would not expect the same pattern at other locations and in
independent periods of time (Fig. 2), if the Nuuk 2010 temperatures
are spurious. Rather, record high temperatures are evident at other
Greenland stations in the same months, for example, in May, August,
September, November, December 2010. Watts implicates the fact that
the Nuuk measurements are near an airport to discredit the
anomalous year 2010 values. Heat spewing from airplanes seems a
valid concern and incidentally Aasiaat measurements are also from
the grounds of an airport. However, the Prince Christian Sound
(a.k.a. Prins Christian Sund) data
are not obtained from near any airport
(J. Cappelen, DMI, personal communication).
Acknowledgement
We are fortunate to
have continuous temperature records from
Greenland’s capital Nuuk beginning in 1866 in addition to
century-plus records from other locations in Greenland (Box 2002;
Vinther et al. 2006; Cappelen 2010; Box et al. 2009), providing
instrumental climate records rivaling many of the longest records
on Earth. I have used these data record and others available from
the Danish Meteorological
Institute and NASA to reconstruct Greenland ice sheet average
surface air temperatures (see Box et al. 2009). I update the Box et
al. (2009) reconstruction and make further analysis in this blog
entry. This work is in preparation for my 7th consecutive annual
Greenland entry for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society’s “State of the Climate” report published each June.
Sources
- Box, J.E., 2002: Survey of Greenland instrumental temperature
records: 1873-2001, International Journal of Climatology, 22,
1829-1847. PDF
- Box, J.E., L. Yang, D.H. Browmich, L-S. Bai, 2009: Greenland
ice sheet surface air temperature variability: 1840-2007, J.
Climate, 22(14), 4029-4049,
doi:10.1175/2009jcli2816.1. PDF
- Cappelen J., 2010: DMI Monthly Climate Data Collection
1768-2009, Denmark, The Faroe 263 Islands and Greenland Dansk
Meterologisk Institut Technical report No. 10-05
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007),
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by S.
Solomon et al., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
- Liepert, B. G. (2002), Observed reductions of surface solar
radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide from 1961 to
1990, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(10), 1421,
doi:10.1029/2002GL014910.
- Schlesinger, M.E. and Navin Ramankutty (1994): An oscillation
in the global climate system of period 65-70
years. Nature, 367, Issue
6465, pp. 723-726, DOI: 10.1038/367723a
- Trenberth, K.E. and D.J. Shea (2006): Atlantic hurricanes and
natural variability in 2005. Geophysical Research
Letters 33, L12704,
doi:10.1029/2006GL026894 PDF
- Vinther, B. M., K. K. Andersen, P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa, and
J. Cappelen, 2006: Extending Greenland temperature records into the
late eighteenth century. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D11105,
doi:10.1029/2005JD006810.
![]()
Posted in refuting
the skeptics | 4
Comments »
Sunday, October 18th, 2009
Of the 31,478 scientist signatories to
the Global Warming Petition
Project under Qualifications of Signatories, only 0.12% or 39
designate having their primary education in “Climatology”. That’s
12 people in 1000. Un-credible.
Posted in refuting
the skeptics | 1
Comment »
Sunday, September 6th, 2009
from Union of Concerned Scientists…
“Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security.
Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution.
Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make
the transition to a clean energy economy. What we need is a
comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition
without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and
economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean
Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”)
answers that need.
To help avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change,
ranging from extreme heat, droughts, and storms to acidifying
oceans and rising sea levels, the United States must play a lead
role and begin to cut its heat-trapping emissions today—and aim for
at least an 80 percent drop from 2005 levels by 2050. Blueprint
policies lower U.S. heat-trapping emissions to meet a cap set at 26
percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 56 percent below 2005 levels
in 2030.
The nation achieves these deep cuts in carbon emissions while
saving consumers and businesses $465 billion annually by 2030. The
Blueprint also builds $1.7 trillion in net cumulative savings
between 2010 and 2030. Blueprint policies stimulate significant
consumer, business, and government investment in new technologies
and measures by 2030. The resulting savings on energy bills from
reductions in electricity and fuel use more than offset the costs
of these additional investments. The result is net annual savings
for households, vehicle owners, businesses, and industries of $255
billion by 2030.
Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save
billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent
regions—will share in these savings.
Net Consumer and
Business Savings (by Census Region in 2030)

Posted in refuting
the skeptics | No
Comments »
Sunday, September 6th, 2009
Anti-science climate change deniers are slowing progress that
will leave the US behind economically/technlogically. Though it is
obvious why clean energy will create next-generation jobs for
Americans while stimulating the US economy, for further reading,
see this Union of Concerned Scientists article.
Posted in refuting
the skeptics | No
Comments »
Sunday, September 6th, 2009
Science academies’ statement on climate change “It is essential
that world leaders agree on emissions reductions needed to combat
negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change,” national
science academies from 13 countries declared in a joint statement
issued on 11 June [2009]. The statement, issued by the academies of
the G8 countries—including England, France, Russia, and the United
States—and five other countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and
South Africa), came in advance of a G8 meeting in Italy in July and
prior to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) negotiations in Denmark in December.
“The G8+5 should lead the transition to an energy efficient
and low-carbon world economy, and foster innovation and
research and development for both mitigation and adaptation
technologies,” the statement noted. The academies urged governments
to agree at the UNFCCC negotiations to adopt a long-term global
goal and short-term emissions reduction targets so that by 2050
global emissions would be reduced by about 50% from 1990
levels.
The academies also called for a significant increase in
fundamental international research on climate, low- carbon,
and climate- resilient technologies, and on ways to protect
natural systems in the face of climate change. “The need for urgent
action to address climate change is now indisputable,” according to
the statement.
Citation: Showstack,
R. (2009), In Brief: Science
academies’ statement on climate change, Eos Trans.
AGU, 90(25),
doi:10.1029/2009EO250004.
Posted in refuting
the skeptics | No
Comments »
Monday, April 6th, 2009
A NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compilation of
land and oceanic instrumental records of near-surface air
temperature do not indicate a cooling trend in recent
years, as recently claimed by Bob Wagner in public
presentations

Bear in mind that the red line indicates a multi-year average
that smooths out year to year noise. The noise is the “weather” of
the climate system. Climate trends should only be deduced from
decadal averages or longer, not picking out individual
years. Climate and
weather represent different time
scales. Shown here, the instrumental temperature data are aggregated
in other ways, e.g. northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere. See,
no cooling.
Independent analyses of the same instrumental temperature data
(but with an independent/different cooling correction for growth of
cities around some of the stations) have been made by the
UK Climate Research Unit at School
of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia,
Norwich. See an example below…

Here’s more information about the CRU analyses.
—
So, you think there’s ocean cooling?
Human-induced climate deniers have blown hard about a now
obsolete study (Lyman et al,
2006) that identified a (now understood to be spurious) recent
cooling trend in ocean heat content data. According to Gavin
Schmidt -
“The ‘cooling’ was actually due to combination of a faulty
pressure reading on a subset of the [oceanic] floats and a switch
between differently-biased observing systems. The pressure error
meant that the temperatures were being associated with a point
higher in the ocean column than they should have been, and this
(given that the ocean cools with depth) introduced a spurious
cooling trend when compared to earlier data. This
error may be fixable in some cases, but for the time being the
suspect data has simply been removed from the analysis. The new
results don’t show any cooling at all.”
Isn’t transparency nice! Sorry Bob. You’ve had it wrong. If
you’d have stayed current with the science (the discrepancy was
identified already nearly 2 years ago! 18 April 2007), you would
not now have to retract your misleading statements.
Tags: refuting the skeptics
Posted in refuting the skeptics | 20
Comments »
Monday, April 6th, 2009
Let me explain why I’m debating anthropogenic (human-induced)
global warming (AGW) deniers…
- The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words,
there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human
activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not
shorter), can not significantly influence climate.
- I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric
and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level
courses in meteorology and physical climate science. Lemme tell
you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and
over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a
contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winningIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth
Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed
publications directly related to climate science.
- While the vast majority of climate scientists and national
policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers
attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there
remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my
time.
- Given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the
livelihoods and economies of present and future generations),
policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small
odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh
the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the
worst.
- I want to help civilization achieve sustainable development.
Putting the deniers in their place (evidently as pseudo-scientists)
makes the world a better place.
Let me warn you that I cannot justify spending more than some
fraction of my time engaging the deniers. If it weren’t for the
chance of helping the non-scientific as-yet undecided folk, I’d
also dismiss the deniers. They are so last-century. Yet, do not
take any delays in responding to counter points to mean that I’m
stalling or have given up. I just don’t have all my time to devote
to this cause. So, be patient. Also, alternatively, please read the
science for yourself and see what I consider to be highly credible
alternative sources of scientific discourse and some unequivocal
truth…
- The IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports and in particular the rather dense IPCC
FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Please beware that
while most of the earlier IPCC reports’ conclusions have not
changed, you should consider the advancements in science since
earlier reports to supercede the earlier results.
- realclimate.org
Finally, be aware that there remain uncertainties. Understand
that predicting future climate is a very complex problem that has
engaged many of the worlds brightests atmospheric and climate
scientists. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that
climate scientists lack crediblity, the ranks of climate scientists
contributing to international assessment reports include Nobel
prize winners, national science medal winners, heads of academic
and governmental departments, and many who are deeply patriotic,
skeptical, and caring for the world’s challenges. Me stating that
uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not made
major advancements in knowledge, climate scientists have. Don’t let
the 1970s global cooling scare discredit advances in science since!
Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate
science has not provided projections of future climate worthy of
policy response, climate science has made useful and honest
projections, again, see the IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Again, given the
maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and
economies of present and future generations), policy makers must
act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic
climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while
hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.
Tags: refuting the skeptics
Posted in refuting the skeptics | 6
Comments »
Saturday, April 4th, 2009
Since deniers don’t trust scientists to be careful, which they
are on Mauna Loa, let’s just throw out the Mauna Loa data for
the sake of argument… “There are dozens of other sampling
stations scattered all over the globe, including one in
the Antarctic,
far from cities, SUVs, cement plants, and active volcanoes. It also
shows the same
rise [PDF], though the southern hemisphere tends to lag a
few years behind the northern hemisphere, where the majority of the
CO2 is produced. Here are eight
others — same results.
Sorry, its all of us Joes, not the volcanoes.” – Grist
Tags: refuting the skeptics
Posted in refuting the skeptics | 6
Comments »
Friday, April 3rd, 2009
Robert Wagner (OD optometry) correctly recognizes that water
vapor (what Robert Essenhigh refers to as “water gas”) is a key
Greenhouse gas. Quoting the IPCC Fourth
Assessment report: “Water vapor is the most important gaseous
source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about
60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and
Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive
feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and
Soden, 2000).”
If Wagner read the published peer reviewed science that IPCC
summarizes, he’d know that direct observations from balloon
soundings show that The average atmospheric water
vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and
ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly
consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can
hold. See IPCC 2007 Chapter 3Section 3.4.
Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations are also increasing. Elevated CO2
concentrations have an associated net warming affect on climate. Of
all the “well mixed” greenhouse gasses, CO2 has by far the largest
warming effect. See figure SPM.2 in the IPCC 2007 Summary For Policy Makers.
Climate change deniers seek holes in the science instead of
seeking the truth. The science by definition aims for truth.
There is no conspiracy. Climate change deniers waste the time of
climate scientists and block progress. We should instead be united
to protect future generations from our trashing of the environment.
United we stand, divided: the rest of the world sells us
technologies America should sell them.
Posted in refuting
the skeptics | 10 Comments
»
Friday, April 3rd, 2009
Human-induced climate change deniers confuse weather
and climate. It’s actually simple…. Climate is the long term
average state. Weather is ther short term state.
Climate models predict the average state. Weather
models attempt to predict the instantaneous state. Chaos theory has
it that instantaneous phenomena cannot be predicted far out. Yet,
it does not take a sophisticated model to predict that if humans
increase the concentration of an infrared heat-trapping gas, the
climate will warm. It’s that simple. The chemistry of CO2, CH4, H2O
are sufficiently well established. Climate models have reproduced
observed warming. Climate models wiith human chemical
transformations of our atmosphere left out have no warming. See
below…

You need to be a member of Atheist Universe to add comments!
Join Atheist Universe