FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 12/04/2007 4:21:14 PM PST by ricks_place
Seattle - Despite decades of ever more-exacting science projecting Earth's warming climate, there remains large uncertainty about just how much warming will actually occur.
Two University of Washington scientists believe the uncertainty remains so high because the climate system itself is very sensitive to a variety of factors, such as increased greenhouse gases or a higher concentration of atmospheric particles that reflect sunlight back into space.
In essence, the scientists found that the more likely it is that conditions will cause climate to warm, the more uncertainty exists about how much warming there will be. "Uncertainty and sensitivity have to go hand in hand. They're inextricable," said Gerard Roe, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences. "We're used to systems in which reducing the uncertainty in the physics means reducing the uncertainty in the response by about the same proportion. But that's not how climate change works."
Roe and Marcia Baker, a UW professor emeritus of Earth and space sciences and of atmospheric sciences, have devised and tested a theory they believe can help climate modelers and observers understand the range of probabilities from various factors, or feedbacks, involved in climate change. The theory is contained in a paper published in the Oct. 26 edition of Science.
In political polling, as the same questions are asked of more and more people the uncertainty, expressed as margin of error, declines substantially and the poll becomes a clearer snapshot of public opinion at that time. But it turns out that with climate, additional research does not substantially reduce the uncertainty.
The equation devised by Roe and Baker helps modelers understand built-in uncertainties so that the researchers can get meaningful results after running a climate model just a few times, rather than having to run it several thousand times and adjust various climate factors each time. "It's a yardstick against which one can test climate models," Roe said.
Scientists have projected that simply doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would increase global mean temperature by about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit. However, that projection does not take into account climate feedbacks -- physical processes in the climate system that amplify or subdue the response. Those feedbacks would raise temperature even more, as much as another 5 degrees F according to the most likely projection. One example of a feedback is that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, which in itself is a greenhouse gas. The increased water vapor then amplifies the effect on temperature caused by the original increase in carbon dioxide.
"Sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentration is just one measure of climate change, but it is the standard measure," Roe said.
Before the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was at a concentration of about 280 parts per million. Today it is about 380 parts per million and estimates are that it will reach 560 to 1,000 parts per million by the end of the century.
The question is what all that added carbon dioxide will do to the planet's temperature. The new equation can help provide an answer, since it links the probability of arming with uncertainty about the physical processes that affect how much warming will occur, Roe said.
"The kicker is that small uncertainties in the physical processes are amplified into large uncertainties in the climate response, and there is nothing we can do about that," he said.
While the new equation will help scientists quickly see the most likely impacts, it also shows that far more extreme temperature changes -- perhaps 15 degrees or more in the global mean -- are possible, though not probable. That same result also was reported in previous studies that used thousands of computer simulations, and the new equation shows the extreme possibilities are fundamental to the nature of the climate system.
Much will depend on what happens to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the future. Since they can remain in the atmosphere for decades, even a slight decrease in emissions is unlikely to do more than stabilize overall concentrations, Roe said.
"If all we do is stabilize concentrations, then we will still be risking the highest temperature change shown in the models," he said.
......additional research does not substantially reduce the uncertainty.
......"The kicker is that small uncertainties in the physical processes are amplified into large uncertainties in the climate response, and there is nothing we can do about that,"
......additional research does not substantially reduce the uncertainty.
Dear U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,
Please note that we in the USA are uncertain of your current usefulness.
Could you all just get off the public dole and get real jobs?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Yes...science is forbidden...this is FR.
LMAO
Confession IS good for the soul.
Soooo ... lemme get this right ...
Less testing means more science for your research dollar.
and if this theory is bogus, we will never know, because we did not test enough in the first place ...
I wonder if they did regression testing on thier theory ... what would it show the temperature should be today if they started with temps from the 1700’s and CO2 at 280 ppm.
Junk science!
~~ AGW™ ping~~
I am 100 percent certain they still grossly overstate the range. Warming will be much lower than all the models say.
UNscience
The only thing that is absolutely certain about the climate is that it is in constant change. The earth would be boring without dramatic climate change.
Much of the recent excitement over both the ozone hole and MMGW miss out on a critical fact. In either case, the problem is a marginal one. So why not try marginal solutions?
For example, the ozone hole in the ozone layer. At its densest, it has between only 2 and 8 parts per million of ozone in the ozone layer. This means that perhaps 100 high altitude balloons, each carrying a 1-ton payload of liquid ozone, could significantly reduce the size of the ozone hole. Of course, it wouldn’t close it, just reduce its size a bit. The rotation of the Earth and wind would disperse it.
For MMGW, how about creating some non-toxic, reflective nanoparticles with one shiny side, and a tendency to be “shiny side up”. Sprayed into the upper atmosphere, where they would tend to stay for a while, they would reflect back into space *some* solar radiation. Making the surface of the Earth beneath the cloud just slightly less warm.
Again, a marginal solution to a marginal problem.
That's right, and there's an upper limit which is insignificant. That means everything below it is also insignificant.
"..."The kicker is that small uncertainties in the physical processes are amplified into large uncertainties in the climate response, and there is nothing we can do about that,"
BS! There are no amplifiers. There's an upper limit to the total possible energy input and the eqipartiiton of energy principle means the energy will be distributed to each place it can go in the same proportion it does now.
"the new equation will help scientists quickly see the most likely impacts, it also shows that far more extreme temperature changes -- perhaps 15 degrees or more in the global mean -- are possible, though not probable."
It will help them come up with some more BS to stoke the fires their leftist propaganda facilities. 15o is not possible, because the probability is ~zero.
All the promising cautions in the first part are eliminated in the conclusion:
“If all we do is stabilize concentrations, then we will still be risking the highest temperature change shown in the models,”
This isn’t science, this is persuasion going on extortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.