29/07/2016

Climate Models Are Accurately Predicting Ocean And Global Warming

The Guardian

A new study from my colleagues and I vindicates climate models, which are accurately predicting the rate of ocean heat accumulation
Scenic sunset over the ocean. Photograph: Horizon International Images Lim/Alamy
For those of us who are concerned about global warming, two of the most critical questions we ask are, "how fast is the Earth warming?" and "how much will it warm in the future?".
The first question can be answered in a number of ways. For instance, we can actually measure the rate of energy increase in the Earth's system (primarily through measuring changing ocean temperatures). Alternatively, we can measure changes in the net inflow of heat at the top of the atmosphere using satellites. We can also measure the rate of sea-level rise to get an estimate of the warming rate.
Since much of sea-level rise is caused by thermal expansion of water, knowledge of the water-level rise allows us to deduce the warming rate. We can also use climate models (which are sophisticated computer calculations of the Earth's climate) or our knowledge from Earth's past (paleoclimatology).
Many studies use combinations of these study methods to attain estimates and typically the estimates are that the planet is warming at a rate of perhaps 0.5 to 1 Watt per square meter of Earth's surface area. However, there is some discrepancy among the actual numbers.
So assuming we know how much heat is being accumulated by the Earth, how can we predict what the future climate will be? The main tool for this is climate models (although there are other independent ways we can study the future). With climate models, we can play "what-if scenarios" and input either current conditions or hypothetical conditions and watch the Earth's climate evolve within the simulation.
Two incorrect but nevertheless consistent denial arguments are that the Earth isn't warming and that climate models are inaccurate. A new study, published by Kevin Trenberth, Lijing Cheng, and others (I was also an author) answers these questions.
The study was just published in the journal Ocean Sciences; a draft of it is available here. In this study, we did a few new things. First, we presented a new estimate of ocean heating throughout its full depth (most studies only consider the top portion of the ocean). Second, we used a new technique to learn about ocean temperature changes in areas where there are very few measurements. Finally, we used a large group of computer models to predict warming rates, and we found excellent agreement between the predictions and the measurements.
According to the measurements, the Earth has gained 0.46 Watts per square meter between 1970 and 2005. Since, 1992 the rate is higher (0.75 Watts per square meter) and therefore shows an acceleration of the warming. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent of 5,400,000,000,000 (or 5,400 billion) 60-watt light bulbs running continuously day and night. In my view, these numbers are the most accurate measurements of the rate at which the Earth is warming.
What about the next question – how did the models do? Amazingly well. From 1970 through 2005, the models on average showed a warming of 0.41 Watts per square meter and from 1992-2005 the models gave 0.77 Watts per meter squared. This means that since 1992, the models have been within 3 % of the measurements. In my mind, this agreement is the strongest vindication of the models ever found, and in fact, in our study we suggest that matches between climate models and ocean warming should be a major test of the models.
Despite these excellent results, scientists want to do better. During a conversation with Dr. Trenberth, he told me:
Progress is being made on understanding the energy flows through the climate system as datasets are improved and methods of analyzing the data are being revised and rigorously tested. We can never go back and make observations that were missed, but we can still improve knowledge of how the climate has evolved, even in recent (post-2005) data-rich (Argo) times.
My other colleague, Dr. Lijing Cheng says:
Ocean heat content is a vital climate indicator and is a key metric for global warming. How well ocean heating can be assessed by observations and can be simulated by climate models are a cornerstone of climate studies. By collecting the state-of-the-art observational ocean warming estimates and climate model results, this study gives the current status of our warming world and its future heating. We will continue to work hard to improve both measurements and models to better understand the climate change.
Readers should also know that our study isn't the only one of its kind to make these findings. A paper published before ours by a world-class group of scientists came to similar conclusions. So too does another study found here. When multiple and independent studies come to similar conclusions, it suggests that the conclusions are robust.Our current warming and future predictions are so very important to understanding this very important topic. Fortunately, this new study advances our knowledge in these areas.

Links

James Cameron Wants to Make Climate Change an Election Year Issue

Time

The Titanic director called Trump a "madman"

Filmmaker and climate change activist James Cameron described Donald Trump’s campaign as a unique opportunity to put climate change on the map for voters hours before a mini-documentary on the issue was set to air at the Democratic National Convention (DNC).
“If Trump is a declared denier, and he is, it’s unequivocal, now you’ve got some leverage for a swing voter,” said Cameron on a conference call for journalists. “I think you’ve got an angle of attack.”
Cameron’s short documentary—entitled Not Reality TV—aimed to do just that. The five-and-a-half minute film presents visuals of climate-related devastation along with voices calling attention to the issue from the likes of Pope Francis, George H.W. Bush and scientists. And, like much of the DNC, the video is filled with celebrities—from narration by Sigourney Weaver to an appearance by Jack Black.
The video also takes aim at Trump calling his position on the issue “dangerous” and showing some of his more outrageous remarks on the topic. On the call, Cameron described Trump as “incredibly reckless” and a “madman.”
Cameron has worked to bring attention to the issue as an executive producer on the show Years of Living Dangerously, which highlights different places affected by climate change—as well as possible climate change solutions—each episode.

Links

Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why Climate Denial Should Be A Criminal Offence

New Zealand Herald - Dr Jarrod Gilbert*

The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool. Photo / Getty Images
There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than that committed by those who deny climate change.
The scientific consensus is so overwhelming that to argue against it is to perpetuate a dangerous fraud.
Denial has become a yardstick by which intelligence can be tested.
The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.
Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth's atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found "no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible". Since then scientists have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in.
Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compared it to the consensus linking smoking to cancer. The debate is over, yet doubt continues.
For decades, arguments denying the harms caused by smoking were made. A tobacco executive once said: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
Such doubts can be highly effective, particularly if they allow people to support agendas that are politically or economically useful to them.
One person who has managed to successfully merge expert and popular opinions is English physicist Professor Brian Cox, whose books and television programmes explain complex scientific phenomena in highly accessible ways. He recently said that ignoring best evidence and turning against experts is "the road back to the cave".
Modern civilisation, he says, has grown not because of gut instinct and guesswork but because of scientific understanding and thinking. "Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest; it means you spend your life studying something. You're not necessarily right - but you're more likely to be right than someone who's not spent their life studying it."
If 100 of the best-qualified engineers were asked to assess the structural integrity of a house and 97 of them said it was unsafe, who would listen to the other three engineers and buy the house? Yet that is the foolishness of climate change denial. Furthermore, the basis for these decisions is often arbitrary and variable.
We all believe in the expertise at Nasa when it launches a rocket into earth's orbit then flicks it into space and lands it on a rock, but so many people conveniently ignore the organisation's knowledge and expertise when it confirms humans created climate change.
All of this might be a strange curiosity if the ramifications weren't so serious. Whether it is the erosion of coastal properties, an influx of climate refugees from the Pacific, or the economic impacts on our primary industries from severe weather events, New Zealand must prepare for some significant realities.
The worst of these problems will impact more greatly on generations to come, but to ignore them now is as unconscionable as it is selfish. It ought be seen as a crime.
One way in which everyday crime can be discouraged is to ensure that "capable guardians" are around to deter criminal activity. When it comes to climate change, the capable guardians are educated members of the public who counteract the deniers.
There may be differing opinions on what policies to pursue, but those who deny that climate change exists ought be shouted down like the charlatans that they are. Or better yet, looked upon with pitiful contempt and completely ignored.
There is no room to sit on the fence and say, "I don't know if it's true". Ignorance of the law excuses no one - and so it is with the laws of science.

*Dr Jarrod Gilbert is a sociologist at the University of Canterbury and the lead researcher at Independent Research Solutions. He is an award-winning writer who specialises in research with practical applications.

Links