Some weekend reading 06 May 05

The abstract from which I extracted the following text is located at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/uoc—scf050405.php

“In an article in this week’s issue of Science, three leading climate and atmospheric scientists argue that scientific research is lacking in several core areas concerning Earth’s climate and its fundamental energy system.

In a “Perspectives” article in the journal, the scientists say that a significant gap exists in accounting for the amount of the sun’s energy that is absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere and surface and the amount reflected back into space.

Such information about this “energy balance” is vital, the authors say, for accurately determining how Earth’s climate and temperature is changing, factors that can influence a host of important processes and patterns such as weather, sea level and precipitation, and for gaining a clear understanding of how human-produced changes are impacting climate. The authors are Robert J. Charlson of the University of Washington, Francisco P. J. Valero of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and John H. Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology’s Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.

. . .

But to better understand and characterize the complex interactions of Earth’s systems-and to be able to forecast its future evolution-it is imperative to find accurate answers to the fundamental scientific questions that involve the balance between the absorbed solar radiation and the radiated infrared radiation, says Valero. Such balance is affected by natural and human-made changes that affect the interactions of radiation (solar and infrared) with greenhouse gases, aerosols and clouds, including the effects of greenhouse gases and aerosols on clouds and the atmosphere.

In the Perspectives article, the authors point out the importance of accurate observations of Earth albedo as well as the need for the development of a strategy that facilitates research involving the interaction of radiation (both solar and infrared) with gases, aerosols and clouds.”

These scientists are confirming what Dr. Motl published on his website. The fact is that we do not have a sufficient understanding of the earth/solar energy balance to make the kinds of claims that James Hansen et al. made in their article.

I know that Dr. Motl is a crank, (Dano told me so) but it appears that he lucked out and nailed this one.

Scientists always call for more research to gain better understanding. That’s what they do – want to gain a better understanding. No surprise.

But, the actual article says:

Present trends suggest that by 2050, the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect will be so large that the net anthropogenic forcing will be unequivocally positive and substantial in magnitude (6).

Hmmm…

That’s what Hansen has said for a long time. This is different than the implication by norb that we don’t know enough (presumably to set policy, in addition to disparaging Hansen [who, BTW, is often quoted by septics]).

Hmmm…

So, what else does the Perspectives piece say?

Apparent agreement. Monthly mean annual cycle and standard deviation (vertical bars) of albedo from six models (12, 15). These and other models are used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for preindustrial control simulations.

Changes in energy balance affect a host of climatic factors, such as temperature, sea level, meteorological patterns, and precipitation. To understand and quantify these effects, the enhanced greenhouse effect and all other forcings must be known accurately. To complicate matters further, the enhanced greenhouse effect is suspected of causing changes in clouds and hence albedo, resulting in feedbacks on both incoming and outgoing radiation (7).

Increased albedo could counteract the enhanced greenhouse effect on a global scale. However, the spatial and temporal characteristics of aerosols, clouds, and greenhouse gases differ widely. Clouds change rapidly, and atmospheric residence times for aerosols are short relative to those for the key greenhouse gases (which remain in the atmosphere for centuries). Albedo therefore changes rapidly, whereas the enhanced greenhouse effect simply increases as a result of the slow accumulation of greenhouse gases.

Huh.

The scientific community has recognized this essential need for years, but major impediments have developed. For example, the broadband data collected by the ERBS (Earth Radiation Budget Satellite) between 2000 and 2004 are not being analyzed for budgetary reasons. The DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) satellite has been built but has since fallen victim to the delayed space shuttle program and is now in storage awaiting a launch opportunity. The CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation) and CloudSat satellites have been built and have scheduled launches, but recent budget cuts imposed on the Earth sciences in NASA will severely constrain the analysis and interpretation of the data. Inasmuch as the primary objectives of these three satellites include studies of the effects of aerosols and clouds on albedo, what seemed to be real progress could be delayed or thwarted.

Wow.

To quantify all changes in energy balance, and in view of the discrepancies in magnitude and even sign (see the table and the figure), it will be necessary to develop a strategy to strengthen research efforts on albedo-related quantities, including modeling and analysis of the data from the yet-to-be-launched satellites. To help achieve a balance of effort, care must be exercised in the use of potentially misleading terms like “global warming” (13) and “global dimming” (14). Their use may constitute an obstacle in reaching an understanding of the issues driving the fundamental scientific questions of Earth’s energy balance, albedo, greenhouse effect, and interactions of solar and infrared radiation with aerosols and clouds.

Robert J. Charlson, Francisco P. J. Valero, John H. Seinfeld 2005. In Search of Balance. Science, Vol 308, Issue 5723, 806-807 , 6 May 2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1108162]

So, this is all good.

What was the issue again? Was somebody trying to sow doubt?

Best,

D

I read that the earth is actually looking brighter from space due the cleaner air on earth. The sun has more light penetrating due to cleaner air and is allowing more reflection back out to space making the earth appear much brighter from space. Good news right?

Well it also appears the cleaner air allowing the sunlight in more is also exacerbating the global warming as more sunlight is penetraing and warming the air… oops!

Nature Article “That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict. “

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html

One step forward, two steps back…

I did not read your article yet but it appears to be the Global Dimming Concept.

Getting back to the earth’s heat balance theme, there are things we do to warm the planet and things we do to cool the planet. Sulfate pollution, mostly from coal power plants, cools the planet and our sulfate pollution has been nicknamed the “human volcano”.

This problem creates a false sense of security when the warming effects are masked by our pollution. I like to call it the “coal trap”. Since the earth’s thermal inertia has a delaying effect as well, we do not see easily at this point in time the future problems we may be creating. Coupled with a few uncertainties, this enables dangerous procrastination. And then, when the future becomes the present, our problems may become intractable.

When we know the earth’s heat imbalance with precision taking into account solar variability and natural cycles, then we will know how many steps forward or backward we are actually taking and how fast we are taking those steps.

As I said before in other posts, that heat imbalance number is more indicative of our progress and includes all climate factors including greenhouse gases. I used that number posted by Mark and calculated many aspects which may shed light on previous questions you have asked. It was your questions, Jim, in part, which inspired me to do that.

I hope you read my other more technical posts and make some comments if they were helpful to you. In doing those calculations, I gained more clarity for myself. When that happens, I like to share what I learned.

Most people outside this blog site know very little about these issues. As we learn more from each other, then we must share that “wealth” with others. Our communication must be effective. In that light, your feedback would also be useful to me. Confusion must be eliminated in order for all of us to make progress. We are all in this together and we all care about the future. That is what unites us!

Best Regards,

Dan

Hi Dano,

I correspond with a few good people from Mark’s blog site privately and I received an email from one of my friends who said he liked my perspective on the contrarian focus which was embedded in one of my longer posts. This is what I said about contrarians (like Norbert):

“They have the power of a jury in that they only have to pose one reasonable doubt to the entire science and since we all really want the problem to go away, it can become attractive to listen to.”

With respect to your dialogue with Norbert, I do like the idea that albedo is finally getting the attention it deserves in earth’s heat balance analysis. GHG are important but to exclude albedo in our discussions has been a gross oversight.

Despite the uncertainties which Norbert uses to minimize the problem and the risks, correcting man-made heat absorbing dark surfaces of road pavement, parking lots, and roofs would have many positive benefits as I posted before.

Albedo solutions should compliment GHG reductions to be an part of the overall plan to mitigate future problems.

Best Regards,

Dan

James Hansen et al. may be more correct than not. His result of 0.85 W/m2 has a published uncertainty of + or – 0.15 W/m2

In fact, it is possible that the average value of 0.85 W/m2 could actually be 1.00 W/m2 or even higher if his uncertainty is too low as you suggest!

Remember that the uncertainty of the imbalance may be lower than the uncertainty of the magnitude of its components.

With that said we may not be able to accurately know the total volume of water in a lake at any moment but we can easily measure the level of the lake and know if the water is increasing or decreasing in volume with great precision using a simple ruler.

That is the flaw in your entire contrarian argument regarding uncertainty of the earth’s heat imbalance calculation.

Using my analogy, the more intelligent scientists know how to measure the water level of the lake to know if it is increasing or decreasing in water.

Your people are so inept that they focus on measuring the volume of the lake directly which is a much more difficult and uncertain calculation.

Norbert, where do you think that plus or minus 0.15 W/m2 uncertainty number came from?

Do you think James Hansen et al simply made that number up because they do not know what they are doing?

I do not think so!

Dan

I am working on a campaign in my home town of reading (England) to save some victorian swiming baths and a couple of square K of sports fields from the develpoers. (they want yet another hotel)

We started talking to some folk at the department of urban meterology to get deta on “Boiling frog syndrome” etc. Which was all good.

What we also got was some arial (I guess satalite) images of the area.

What I noticed was that Reading from the air is dark grey verging on Black. With a few bits of green field remaining (hense the campaign)

What I want to know, surely Black is the worst possible colour for a town to be in terms of heat. Black has no reflective qualities at all.

When you think about it further, tarmac is a thick black oily heat spunge.

Are there any papers or resurch on this that I could look up or am I being an idiot.

Laters Ian.

No Ian, your questions are very valid. Smart people ask questions while ignorant people remain that way because they don’t.

I have mentioned ideas such as “heat island” and “albedo” more in my recent comments so you may gain something from reading them.

But more importantly, do A Google on “Heat Islands” and “Albedo” and see what you discover!

I would be interested in your progress so I hope you report back to this blog what you learned and if it helped your cause succeed.

Best,

Dan

Let’s explore them a bit.

Your first quote from the Carlson article says, “Present trends suggest that by 2050, the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect will be so large that the net anthropogenic forcing will be unequivocally positive and substantial in magnitude (6).”

When I chase the origin of the quote backwards, I com to a 2003 article by Anderson and Charlson which says, “Even if the most negative value of aerosol forcing shown in the figure turns out to be correct, the current range of plausible emissions scenarios (6) indicates that GHG forcing will exceed aerosol forcing somewhere between 2030 and 2050. Thus, despite current uncertainties, forward calculations lead to the unambiguous conclusion that anthropogenic activity will inevitably result in a strong, positive forcing of Earth’s climate system.”

Reference 6, support for the plausible emissions scenario is Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (TAR). The TAR, of course, estimates a future growth in the carbon dioxide emission rate of 1% per year. The TAR presents evidence that at that rate of carbon dioxide accrual; the temperature will increase by 2-Celsius degrees in the next 80 years, 2080, not 2050.

The historical rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 0.4% per year. That rate of increase has been relatively stable for over 100 years and occurred during times of relatively inexpensive fossil fuels. I doubt that it is possible for us to sustain a rate 350% higher for the next 80 years in the face of declining fossil fuel availability and increased costs for them. Furthermore, I do not believe that fossil fuels will have to provide our energy for the next 100 years. I believe that we will find new and better ways to generate power.

Finally, I do not believe that an increase of 2-Celsius degrees will cause untoward problems. It certainly will not cause the kinds of catastrophe that ardent climate alarmists tout.

Your next quote, the Apparent Agreement quote, supports my contention. We do not know the earth’s albedo with a high degree of accuracy. If Hansen overestimated albedo he might have attributed too much incoming radiation to carbon dioxide absorption and too little to absorption by the earth’s surface. That error would have caused him to overestimate the amount of warming attributable to carbon dioxide. The range of uncertainty is far greater (about 6 times higher) than the value of 0.85 watts/square meter that Hansen claims fits with his greenhouse model.

As you said earlier, the next passage that you quoted is Charlson’s appeal for funding. OK, scientists do that.

I fully agree with the last part of your last passage, that is, “To help achieve a balance of effort, care must be exercised in the use of potentially misleading terms like ‘global warming’ (13) and ‘global dimming’ (14). Their use may constitute an obstacle in reaching an understanding of the issues driving the fundamental scientific questions of Earth’s energy balance, albedo, greenhouse effect, and interactions of solar and infrared radiation with aerosols and clouds.” That is exactly what I have been saying; we do not have sufficient information to blame all of the warming that we have experienced on the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Hi Dan;

Akbari’s team is looking at the light-colored urban surfaces scenario you imply. If’n you’re interested, here’s some refs:

Akbari H. 2002. Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants. Environmental Pollution 116:1 pp. s119-s126 March 2002.

Akbari and Taha 1992. The impact of trees and white surfaces on residential heating and cooling energy use in four Canadian cities. Energy 17:2 pp. 141–149 1992.