Comments on: IPCC and Data Access

By: Warmest March

Warmest March — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:49:15 +0000

[...] by the IPCC) requested more information about a paper he was reviewing so he could verify it .. IPCC and Data Access Climate Audit Not really the scientific method is it Clippo? It is time that proper debate took place with [...]

By: Mark Matthesson

Mark Matthesson — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:32:06 +0000

When the then chairman of the IPCC refers to skeptics as ‘flat earthers’ you get the impression that the IPCC is biased..

By: Geo

Geo — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:53:14 +0000

Wow, what a classic bureaucratic catch-22. One bureaucrat tells you its not their job, do it yourself. And when you do, the next bureaucrat blames you for taking the first bureaucrat’s advice.

Obviously the near duh-like answer here is don’t use unpublished articles in the first place, unless the author in question agrees to the same data access they would have supplied to a journal in the first place (i.e. essentially the IPCC fills the role of the missing journal). If IPCC is unable/unwilling to fill that role, then too bad/so sad, can’t use it.

There is a legitimate interest here in protecting the journals and the academic credits of the authors, certainly. But they can’t have it both ways –if that interest is higher than the interest of the IPCC in getting early peeks at in-process articles. . . then it is. Live with it.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:10:16 +0000

Crowley, a Hegerl et al coauthor, has challenged me in correspondence with Andy Revkin see- DotEarth here. . In his email to Revkin, Crowley acknowledged that he was "overdue in getting you some data set you'd requested." It is, of course, the data originally requested in fall 2005 in connection with the review of AR4.

By: Sebastian Lozano

Sebastian Lozano — Tue, 29 May 2007 11:10:46 +0000

In relation with data availability and data access, I have been trying to obtain data on CO2 emission paths corresponding to different stabilization scenarios (e.g. S550e, S650e, etc) and I have been unable to find them. Does anybody know where can they be accessed? I have only found graphical representation but no table data.

Thank you in advance

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:24:59 +0000

Filippo, welcome to the discussion. Your points are well taken. Many of us wonder about the same things that you wonder about.

By: Filippo Turturici

Filippo Turturici — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:53:32 +0000

I discovered this site from a few days, and this my first comment here.
I am just a young aerospace engineering graduate, but I think I can give you something which maight be interesting.
From astronomical data, we find two curious things: H2O and CO2 absorption bands are often the same, as Andrey Levin wrote; but, usually we just “see” H2O and not CO2 from the analisys of the spectrum, because water vapor is much more present in the troposphere. The other thing is that in the stratosphere we have a very strong CO2 absorption band, visible and usefull (for e.g. horizon sensors) in the infrared field from the space: indeed, tri-atomic gases work both ways, absorbing and reflecting both Earth and Sun infrared emission (just, Earth’s infrared is 400 times less than Sun’s one).
From heath transmission, I cannot give you much, because it is not a matter of great interest for mechanical and aerospace engineering how CO2 and other gases can heat a volume. But, from what I could find, heat flux forcing should be proportional to the partial pressure of the gas: dh’=-a*h*dx , where a is the constant referring to the gas; that is, working with very small changes, CO2 effect should be proportional to its increase from 0.029% to 0.038% of the atmosphere. This would not be against a logarithmic theory: we have just to consider that we deal with very small changes numerically (a 1-2°C change in Earth temperature is quite nothing for thermal control models, just the uncertainty of a light oscillation, even if we know how so little can seem so fearful). I am still for any real calculus to estimate greenhouse effect and then CO2 effect, not coincidences (you can see on the site of the Hadley Centre: they too had to admit recently that probably in the far past was warming to drive CO2 concentrations and maybe not the contrary) nor fixing the holes of the models (the only explanation I have ever read for IPCC supposed heat forcing always was: our models work only with it, then it must be true; we have no other guilty than man-made gases).
Then the Sun influence itself. IPCC calculated (I do not know how) Sun influence at 0.1-0.15W/m^2, on a total forcing of 1.5W/m^2, on a heat flux on Earth surface of 294W/m^2. But, most recent astronomical and space data suggest an increase in Sun heat flux of 0.15%, that is 0.4-0.5W/m^2 on Earth surface (a change from 10% to 30%, considering right IPCC forcing: maybe things would not change so much, but IMO this is a major error).
Finally, measurements theory. I found surprising how many things are announced as “records” or “sure trends”, like for last years global temperatures, when, according to measurement theory, they are comparable then to be considered equal in the range of their uncertainty (uncertainty is full part of the measurement process, it cannot be left out from the analisys). Moreover, I cannot believe how experienced scientists (or supposed so) can believe to find Earth’s temperature with a 0.1°C precision in the past centuries, when such a value can barely be accorded to last decades direct measurements (and I am not sure even about them: but it does not mean that I do not see the heating of the large part of Earth).

I beg your pardon for the length, and maybe I went also OT. Best regards.

By: Andrey Levin

Andrey Levin — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:07:50 +0000

Gordon:

I believe that more detailed look into physics will answer your questions.

1. Adsorption bands for IR radiation emitted by Earth surface for CO2 and water vapor are mostly identical. This means that CO2 picks-up only small fraction of heat radiated from earth surface water vapor in lower troposphere has already adsorbed. Most rigorous estimations put CO2 GHG effect as 5-10% of water vapor GHG effect.
2. Both CO2 and water vapor GHG effects are logarithmic. This is the reason why climate scientists use climate sensitivity metric of linear 0.something C for doubling of CO2. It means in effect that heating ability of CO2 is leveling off quite fast with increase of CO2 concentration.
3. The term “GHG effect” is misleading. Agricultural greenhouses heats-up because transparent roof prevent heated air convection. Convection is not prevented in real atmosphere. Rising masses of heated by Earth surface air circumvent GHG blanket and transport heat directly to the stratosphere, where it is radiated back into space.

In addition, amount of heat released by mankind is minuscule compared to natural forces. On the orbit of Earth solar radiation contributes whopping 1.4 KW per square meter of orthogonal surface. You calculate the difference.

As for CO2 emissions, take a look at incredible interesting alternative to IPCC summary of basic science at:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Independent%20Summary5.pdf

Note, that on page 11 there is graph that states that CO2 emissions per capita for whole population of Earth stabilized around 1975 to the 1.2 ton per capita annually. Quite interesting phenomena.

By: Gordon Chase

Gordon Chase — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:14:33 +0000

As a recent graduate of environmental studies I must confess to have acquired as many questions as I have answers,
but as free as I currently am of the dogmas associated with blind dedication to a theory/cause/rasion d’etre,
I have come up with two key questions that nag me:
1) Can a change in a gas as naturally occuring as CO2 in such minute quantitities, i.e. from 0.02% of the
atmosphere to 0.04 of the atmosphere really be capable of such significant temperature change when so many other
factors that affect exposure to the sun (clouds, orbit, sun activity etc)could reasonably be expected to have
more direct temperature consequences?
2)Is CO2 more of a marker of human presence, associated industrial activity and concordant heat production
through matter transfers (E=mc2), than a cause of global warming in and of itself?

It is one thing to say that global warming has given rise to a correlated increased co2 levels, it is another to
say that increased co2 levels has given rise to correlated global warming.
Perhaps the old chicken and egg story is at play here

By: Andrey Levin

Andrey Levin — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:02:07 +0000

Steve S.:

Thanks for reply.

Fundamentally, what you are referring to could be sourced to two things. First, it is basic theorem of Fourier, stating that any continuous signal for any fixed interval (global temperature for millions years, for example) could be to any desired proximity expressed as sum of sine signals of different frequencies. Widely used in hand-held calculators and cell phones signal processing, to name a few.

Does not help much in our case. Basic assumption of natural science is that things happen for a reason (aside from natural oscillation around equilibrium point), and in climate science what scientists are trying to figure out is what exactly these reasons for climate change (climate as being of long-term integral average of highly varying weather) are.

Second, what IPCC climate modelers are outrageously ignorant about, is fundamental principle of Le Chatelier. Any complex system, including climate, inherently adjust its parameters to resist any external forcing. As well it is applies in full to human’s nature and civilization in all its aspects. So it is not really the question whether rising antropogenic or natural CO2 emissions will have diminishing return effect on global warming. It will. My question is what is (or are) these negative feedbacks, and why these effects are not identified and incorporated into climate prediction models. First of all, the effect which overpowers CO2/water vapor greenhouse gas effect plus lower albedo due to decreased snow and ice cover, which repeatedly forces Earth climate back into ice ages after interglacial.