Preparing for the Next IPCC
Preparing for the Next IPCC: This blog continues the series (linked below) where I have tried to give some visibility into the management and politics within the climate community. This one is about how the community is preparing for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report … The next report for the IPCC Working Group I, who are the physical scientists, is scheduled for release in June of 2013. In climate centers around the world, they are already configuring the models that will be used so that they can undergo extensive evaluation before they are run in IPCC experiments.
For the most part, scientific development and the community of scientists are not strongly managed. One of the big changes in the climate community, as the results of the scientific investigation take on more and more importance in society as a whole, is the need to provide “products” for particular purposes, such as the IPCC assessments. In the beginning these assessments were treated like an “add on” to the research activities that had been funded for, more or less, basic research. Today, in the U.S. there is a sub-culture of the community that is directly interested in and funded to assure the U.S> participation in IPCC. There is a constant tension between the need for basic research and the requirement to produce the products necessary for the scientific assessment of climate change. (More on that, next time. Science is managed differently in other countries.))
As suggested in the previous blogs there are a variety of ways that the community organizes to meet the need for IPCC assessments. For the next assessment, named Assessment Report 5 (AR5), it is anticipated that new types of numerical simulations will be needed. Rather than running an array of scenarios to outline what will happen, there will be more consideration of what can and will be done to stabilize the climate.
One way that the community is organizing is through a program called the Climate Model Intercomparison Project. (CMIP) . This will be CMIP number 5; hence, CMIP5. The CMIP projects follow from the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Problem which was started in 1990. There is also an even longer history of model intercomparison and assessments in the stratospheric ozone community.
These intercomparison projects are an important part of model evaluation, but they are just part of the testing and evaluation that is done in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of models. They all have basically the same steps. Observations are the foundation of any evaluation. Hence, there is the need to identify a set of observations that will be used in the evaluations. There are hundreds of possibilities, and over the community as a whole, virtually any credible observation set that provides useful information has been used. However, there are a few that rise to stop as standard. A couple of examples are the surface temperature observations as, for example, compiled and validated and maintained by the Hadley Center and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Another classic example are the cloud and radiation observations that come from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments that fly on several satellites. (Here’s where you can get some data.)
Observations sit at the foundation, but there are several other critical elements in model evaluation. One of those critical elements is to have at least one group of independent researchers mode up of members NOT responsible for the model development. This is a group that can look at models with objectivity. In the U.S. the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison is such a group. (This group is sponsored by the Department of Energy’s Office Biological and Environmental Research.)
Also critical to the process is the design of numerical experiments. (Yes, some scientists argue that there is no such thing as a “numerical experiment,” but it is possible to set up robust scientific experimentation with numerical models.) For example, in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, all of the models simulate from 1979 – 2000 using observed monthly mean sea surface temperatures. This time span was chosen because of the presence of global satellite observations. There are several standard runs in the climate model intercomparisons. An example is the “modern industrial era,” approximately the past 150 years.
Another element of the evaluation is the selection of objective measures for the evaluation and intercomparison. One of the standard measures is called the Taylor Diagram, which is an accumulation of statistical information from many data sources and many models. Here is an example of a Taylor Diagram.
Figure 1: Taylor Diagram: (primer) The plot is constructed based on the Law of Cosines. The observed field is represented by a point at unit distance from the origin along the abscissa. All other points, which represent simulated fields, are positioned such that the variance is the radial distance from the origin, the correlation is the cosine of the azimuthal angle, and the normalized root mean square difference is the distance to the observed point. When the distance to the point representing the observed field is relatively short, good agreement is found between the simulated and observed fields. In the limit of perfect agreement (which is, however, generally not achievable because there are fundamental limits to the predictability of climate), the root mean square difference would approach zero, and and correlation would approach unity.
Finally, this is an example of organizing and planning in the climate community. The process works from both the bottom and the top. Some scientists see the need for both coordination and the need to have controlled experiments across many organizations. They self organize, then seek funding from the agencies. Sometimes the agencies see the need for organization, and then offer incentives and opportunities for scientists to organize. I want to point you to an interesting document for next major IPCC assessment. This is a strategy document developed by part of the modeling community. It is an example of scientists trying to take part in the definition of the best experiments to support the assessments. Here’s A Strategy for Climate Change Stabilization Experiments with Atmospheric Ocean General Circulation Models and Earth System Models. And here are the objectives as quoted from this document.
1. Identify new components that are currently under implementation or will be ready in the next six months for inclusion as first generation Earth System Models in Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs).
2. Establish communication through WCRP, IGBP, IPCC, the climate impacts community, and integrated assessment (IA) modeling teams to coordinate activities in preparation for climate change simulations that will be performed with this next generation of climate system models for a possible IPCC AR5.
3. Propose an experimental design for 21st century climate change experiments with these models (near term and longer term time frames).
4. Specify the requirements for these new models in terms of time series of constituents from new stabilization scenarios (particularly with regard to impacts, mitigation, and adaptation).
Links to relevant blogs.
Importance of Justification
Buying Big Computers
Fragmented Climate
Organizing the Fragments
This series of blogs collected.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index
What bothers me about your posts is that you have learned nothing about the difference between short-term variability and long-term trends.
And besides where did you get that graph? Is it for global levels or is it just one gauge? Because it does not match the U.of Co. dataset.
Link
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2008) — A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small.
A group of researchers from the University of Oslo, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), CICERO Center for Climate and Environmental Research, and the University of Iceland, are behind the study.
Unlikely that cosmic rays affect global warming
There are scientific uncertanties about cosmic rays and cloud formation. Some researchers have claimed that a reduction of cosmic rays during the last decades has contributed to the global temperature rise. The hypothesis is that fewer cosmic rays causes fewer cloud droplets and reduced droplet size, and that this again causes global warming, since reduced cloud droplets would reflect less energy from the sun back to space. However, the researchers who stick to this hypothesis find little support amongst colleagues.
“According to our research, it does not look like reduced cosmic rays leads to reduced cloud formation”, says Jon Egill Kristjansson, a professor at the University of Oslo.
This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.
Kristjansson also points out that most research shows no reduction in cosmic rays during the last decades, and that an astronomic explanation of today’s global warming therefore seems very unlikely.
Studied solar outbreaks
Kristjansson and his collegaues have used observations from so-called Forbush decrease events: Sudden outbreaks of intense solar activity that lead to a strong reduction of cosmic rays, lasting for a couple of days. The researchers have identified 22 such events between 2000 and 2005.
Based on data from the space-borne MODIS instrument, the researchers have investigated whether these events have affected cloud formation. While previous studies have mainly considered cloud cover, the high spatial and spectral resolution of the MODIS data also allows for a more thorough study of microphysical parameters such as cloud droplet size, cloud water content and cloud optical depth.
No statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and galactic cosmic rays.
“Reduced cosmic rays did not lead to reduced cloud formation, either during the outbreaks or during the days that followed. Indeed, following some of the events we could see a reduction, but following others there was an increase in cloud formation. We did not find any patterns in the way the clouds changed”, Kristjansson explains.
By focusing on pristine Southern Hemisphere ocean regions, the researchers examined areas where a cosmic ray signal should be easier to detect than elsewhere.
Supports other recent work
Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London has also studied possible links between solar variability and modern-day climate change.
“This is a careful piece of work by Jon Egill Kristjansson that appears to find no evidence for the reputed link between cosmic rays and clouds," she commented to BBC.
“It's supporting other recent work that also found no relationship," Haigh added.
Link
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2008) — In Europe, most migratory fish species completing their cycle between the sea and the river are currently in danger. Although restoration programmes have been set up, the future distribution of these species may be modified because of climate change. At the Bordeaux Cemagref, scientists have developed biogeographical models to predict their distribution on the 2100 horizon.Migratory fish are noteworthy in that they use both the sea and freshwater environments to complete their life cycle. Since the last glacial period 18,000 years ago, this allowed them to progressively colonize all parts of Europe. However, over-fishing, river development, pollution, etc. have contributed to these migratory fish populations regressing and today most of these species are endangered.
Moreover, they must adapt to global warming, already implicated in the reduced numbers of individuals of certain species, such as the reduction in smelt numbers observed over the past few years in some of the southernmost parts of their distribution area. To identify sensitive species that may be the most severely affected by this climate change, their future geographical distribution, integrating rises in temperature and changes in precipitation, was simulated as part of a doctoral thesis at the Bordeaux Cemagref.
A historical model of species distribution
First, Cemagref researchers inventoried the migratory fish species throughout Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. This large geographical scale covered nearly the entire geographical area of each of the 28 European species counted in the census. How does temperature limit the distribution area of these species? To answer this question, 200 catchment areas were studied to determine the distribution of each species in terms of presence-absence and abundance. The study established a distribution model for each species at a time when humans put little pressure on the environment.
The first decade of the 20th century was chosen as the reference period. More than 400 bibliographic references were analysed and the lists made were completed by the partner laboratories in the European Diadfish network . In addition to air temperature, four other factors known to influence the distribution of freshwater fish were retained: longitude at the mouth of the watershed, the watershed’s surface area, the altitude at the source and precipitations.
What does the future hold for migratory fish in 2100?
The next step applied these distribution models to a context of climate change, using the four reference climate scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Expert Group on Climate Change (Groupement d’Experts Intergouvernementaux sur l’Evolution du Climat; GIEC, 2000). The timeline covered the period to 2100 so that significant changes could be measured in the fish populations with a sufficiently long-term perspective. Moreover, this duration corresponds to most of the restoration plans successfully carried out for migratory fish. Based on a temperature rise between 1 and 7°C, the response of the species can be classed into three categories: shrinkage of the distribution area, extension of the distribution area and no change in the distribution area.
This study has shown that for most species the situation will deteriorate. For example, the smelt and the Arctic char will lose approximately 90% of the watersheds that are favourable for reduced or null gains. Only two species, the thinlipped mullet and the twaite shad, will be able to expand their territory towards the north, beyond their initial distribution area. Finally, in accordance with the predictions, the southern watersheds risk losing most of their species. Could this be an opportunity for more exotic migratory fish? Researchers remain very reserved, even pessimistic, on this point, because few of these species are found along the coast of West Africa because of a lack of permanent rivers to accommodate them.
The priority is therefore restoring the fish environments and populations. The prediction models within these studies are good tools that can be used to set up conservation programmes over the long term at different scales.
Link
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx
Is global ocean circulation changes the primary mechanism driving global climate variations?
It does it on land,sea and air Cruc. The oceans are so massive and its heat content effects the climate globally. The PDO and AMO are great examples of this global climate variability.
You know, that is pretty arrogant to think ocean acidification isn't caused by increased Co2 levels that man has created.What say you?
ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — A team led by International Arctic Research Center scientist Igor Semiletov has found data to suggest that the carbon pool beneath the Arctic Ocean is leaking.The results of more than 1,000 measurements of dissolved methane in the surface water from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf this summer as part of the International Siberian Shelf Study show an increased level of methane in the area. Geophysical measurements showed methane bubbles coming out of chimneys on the seafloor.
“The concentrations of the methane were the highest ever measured in the summertime in the Arctic Ocean,” Semiletov said. “We have found methane bubble clouds above the gas-charged sediment and above the chimneys going through the sediment.”
The new data indicates the underwater permafrost is thawing and therefore releasing methane. Permafrost can affect methane release in two ways. Both underwater and on land, it contains frozen organic material such as dead plants and animals. When permafrost thaws, that organic material decomposes, releasing gases like methane and carbon dioxide. In addition, methane, either in gas form or in ice-like methane hydrates, is trapped underneath the permafrost. When the permafrost thaws, the trapped methane can seep out through the thawed soil. Methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, is thought to be an important factor in global climate change.
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a relatively shallow continental shelf that stretches more than 900 miles into the Arctic Ocean from Siberia. The area is a year-round source of methane to the globe’s atmosphere. However, until recently, scientists believed that much of the area’s carbon pool was safely insulated by underwater permafrost, which is, on average, 11 degrees Celcius warmer than surface permafrost.
Semiletov said this year’s expeditions used both chemical and geophysical measurement techniques, a first in the area. He also noted that while the high-arctic ocean readings were surprisingly high, on par with those from high-arctic lakes, they are still much lower than is being found in subarctic regions.
“That means we cannot extrapolate the subarctic data to the entire Arctic,” he said.
Semiletov, as associate research professor at IARC, leads the International Siberian Shelf Study, which has launched the multiple expeditions to the Arctic Ocean to collect data on methane release of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. The ISSS includes 30 collaborating scientists from five countries. The project, which gained momentum during the International Polar Year, established more than 1,000 oceanographic stations in the Arctic and performed a few million measurements of methane mixing ratios of the Arctic atmosphere in the last five years. It is part of UAF’s work during IPY, an international event that is focusing research efforts and public attention on the Earth’s polar regions.
Semiletov is a chemical oceanographer who has studied carbon cycling in the arctic atmosphere-land-shelf system with emphasis on carbon dioxide and dissolved methane from both terrestrial and oceanic sources since the early 1990s. He joined the International Arctic Research Center in 2001. Since 2004, he has collaborated with IARC scientist Natalia Shakhova to develop the methane study at IARC.
Link
:)
Example here
Internal variability, external forcing and climate trends in multi-decadal AGCM ensembles
Climate Dynamics, Volume 23, Number 6,
An atmospheric general circulation model of intermediate complexity is used to investigate the origin and structure of the climate change in the second half of the twentieth century. The variability of the atmospheric flow is considered as a superposition of an internal part, due to intrinsic dynamical variability, and an external part, due to the variations of the sea surface temperature (SST) forcing. The two components are identified by performing a 50-member ensemble of atmospheric simulations with prescribed, observed SSTs in the period 1949–2002. The large number of realizations allows the estimation of statistics of the atmospheric variability with a high confidence level. The analysis performed focuses on interdecadal and interannual variability of 500 hPa geopotential height in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) during winter. The model reproduces well the structure of the observed trend (defined as the difference in the two 25-year intervals 1977–2001 and 1952–1976), particularly in the Pacific region, and about half of the amplitude of the signal. The trend in 500 hPa height projects mainly onto the second empirical orthogonal function (EOF), both in the observations and in the model ensemble. However, differences between the modelled and the observed variability are found in the pattern of the second EOF in the Atlantic sector. SST changes associated with the El Niño southern oscillation (ENSO) are responsible for about 50% of the signal of the 500 hPa height trend in the Pacific. A second 50-member ensemble is used to evaluate the sensitivity of interdecadal variability to an increase in CO2 optical depth compatible with observed concentration changes. In this second experiment, the simulated trend includes a statistically significant contribution from the positive phase of the Arctic oscillation (AO). Such a contribution is also found in observations. Furthermore, the additional CO2 forcing accounts for part of the NH trend in near-surface temperature, and brings the zonal-mean temperature changes in the stratosphere and upper-troposphere closer to observations.
THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNAL VARIABILITYON CLIMATE PROJECTIONSA. Sorteberg (1), H. Drange (1,2,3), N. G. Kvamsto (1,3), T. Furevik (1,3)(1) Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen, Norway, (2) NansenEnvironmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway, (3) Geophysical Institute, University ofBergen, Norway
With identical greenhouse forcing climate models shows a wide range of responsesboth globally and regionally. This divergence from a single soulution may be partlydue todifferent model formulations and partly due to unpredicatbility of the climatesystem due to internal variability within the climate system itself. The contribution tothe total model spread from each of the two uncertainties is complex and dependenton type of climate variable, the strength of the greenhouse forcing as well as thespatial and temporal scales that are investigated.In order to estimate the contribution of the spread due to internal variability anensemble of simulations using one coupled climate model is performed. Thus theinfluence of intermodel differences on the spread is cancelled and it is possible tomake an estimate of the influence of internal variability on the climate projections.The ensemble was carried out with the coupled Bergen Climate Model (BCM) usingan atmospheric T63 truncation with 31 levels in the vertical and a variable ocean gridranging from 0.8 to 2.4 degrees and 24 vertical levels.The ensemble members have allbeen integrated with a 1% increase per year in CO2 content for 80 years, but startedin different initial ocean and atmosphere states
cb....you need to check out the Doc's blogs....your tunnels are on topic!
WOW! I sure would like to comment there! Funny how some people think they can only cool the climate. They also warm the climate if we leave them in non-cooling phase. This is done by the enourmous amount of hydroelectrical power they produce thus removing the GHGs which is known to warm the planet.They would become great regulators of the PDO and AMO!
It is a sadness I can not bear! It is as though I have been on death row for about two years now! Sniff!!!sniff!!! BTW they also remove heat created by the fossils when they are burned.
Link
(Dec. 20) - President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday named a Harvard physicist and a marine biologist to science posts, signaling a change from Bush administration policies on global warming that were criticized for putting politics over science.
Both John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government response. Holdren will become Obama's science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Lubchenco will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees ocean and atmospheric studies and does much of the government's research on global warming.
BTW, that shriek heard emanating from an office down the hall from Kerry's was Dick Lindzen being bit in the butt by a bear trap. He should learn to be more careful around those things.
And isn't the A Train starting to pay off big time?
MichaelSTL,
Man made regulated upwelling can regulate the frequency of tropical cyclone formation.
The Caspian Sea drying up...
Have the great lakes frozen over yet? Could be the warmer water is causing more snowfall.
Viewing: 51 - 97
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index