The radiative forcing factors used by the IPCC have a range of understanding from low to high.....?

Question

7 of the 9 radiative forcing factors are rated at a level of low scientific understanding, shouldn't we be concerned that they are not accurately modeling the climate?

Shouldn't we be waiting on policy prescriptions until we actually have a firm grasp on what each RF factor and its implications for cliimate cahnge?

It appears that the rush to "do something" is a bastardization of the Precautionary Principle that will run right into the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Why am I wrong in thinking that we need more time and patience when it comes to making policy regarding climate change?

Dana:

Error bars do not imply that we know the full range of possibilties. The error bars imply that we know a mean value of the model and its range, but if the model is flawed, that mean value may bear little resemblance to the actual mean value.

Anders:

I am fully aware that the phrase anthropogenic means man made. As for your assertion that I am clinging to something that may be costly, in what way?

Acting out of precaution without a good understanding of the problem can lead to further problems and in some cases exacerbate the original problem.

The precautionary principle, coupled with the inappropriate simplification of the cause and effect nature of climate change will lead to bad policy.

Bob:

Run that by me again. That doesn't make sense to me. I realize the error bars are relative to the parameter in question. Which leads me back to where I started, what if the paramter itself is wrong? If the generic 4% you use as an example is not actually 4%, then there is a problem with that parameter itself, regardless of the error range.

Trevor:

I am referencing page 4 of
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

" The factors with a low or very low level of understanding are lesser contributors. In other words, we know about the important ones, we don't know as much about the less important ones."

How do you know they are less important if they are poorly understood? This seems to be a bit of the cart before the horse.

Answer 1

Indeed Marc, you are correct.

The fact that only 2 of the 9 RF Terms listed have a LOSU of “high” leads us to the inescapable truth that more research is required. Given such a low level of scientific understanding, we simply aren’t in a position to make any accurate predictions about the future climate of our planet.

All past predictions of global warming have proved to be grossly inaccurate, leading to dubious ideas such as the “ocean notion” – that the missing warmth has been sucked up by the sea, or “global dimming” - that various pollutants in the atmosphere are reducing warming. Hang on, wasn’t global dimming the alarmists’ excuse for why temperatures dropped from the 1940s to the 1970s? But hasn’t that been fixed now, which is why temperatures started rising again after the 1970s? Apparently, it might be back!

Note also that dana’s and bob’s linking of error bars to the LOSU, suggesting that if the LOSU is low they compensate for this limited understanding by having larger error bars, is nonsense. They clearly don’t understand. This can actually be seen from Figure SPM-2 of AR4 itself. If they are correct, than all the RFs with a low LOSU should have bigger error bars than the mediums, but this is obviously not the case. Compare, for example, Ozone (both Stratospheric and Tropospheric): LOSU = medium, with Stratospheric water vapour from CH4: LOSU = low. Clearly the error bars are larger on the former than the latter. And just in case there’s any doubt, let’s look at it mathematically…

Ozone – Stratospheric: -0.05 (-0.15 to 0.05) = error range of -200% to +200%
Ozone – Tropospheric: 0.35 (0.25 to 0.65) = error range of -28% to +85%

Stratospheric water vapour from CH4: 0.07 (0.02 to 0.12) = error range of -71% to +71%

Thus Ozone – Stratospheric has a larger error range in both a positive and negative direction, while Ozone – Tropospheric is greater in the positive direction. So, the LOSU is not simply stating how accurate they estimate their figures are – that’s what the error bars do. Why state the anticipated range of error twice?

No, clearly the LOSU is saying something else. What it is stating, as its name clearly implies, is how well scientifically understood that particular term is, and for most of the terms they’re not very well understood at all. If they are not well understood, then they could be affecting the climate in ways we don’t yet understand. That seems very clear to me.

Unless and until all possible factors are well understood it is too early to start spending billions on something that may not be a problem at all.

Dana says: “If the worst or even median case scenarios are true and we wait on policy changes, we may not make any changes until it's too late.” And: “Because waiting could prove to be a fatal mistake” These comments are meaningless, because they are nothing more than his own prejudiced opinions. There is no evidence that climate change, even if temperatures do rise several degrees (which is highly speculative), will cause us any major problems. Recent research suggests that, while warming may cause 2,000 extra deaths in the UK each summer, it will prevent 20,000 deaths in the winter. Given that millions of people are dying worldwide every year due to problems that are *real* and are happening *right now* wouldn’t humanity be better off dealing with those problems first?

Anders says: “human emissions are effecting the climate.” Nobody is disputing that, but the crucial questions are ‘by how much?’ and ‘should we be worried?’ but no one can conclusively answer those questions at present. Thus, we are back to ‘more research is required.’

Bob says: “the "signal" from greenhouse gases is so strong it dominates everything else.” Really? Well that certainly wasn’t true in the past. Ice core data shows that at the termination of prehistoric warm periods temperature fell while CO2 levels continued to rise. Clearly CO2 wasn’t dominating everything else then; in fact it appears it was being dominated. And it wasn’t exactly dominating during the 1940s to 1970s cooling either, was it? And currently, satellite data shows we’ve had no warming for the last 5 years at a time when CO2 is rising faster than ever, that doesn’t look very dominating, either.

Finally, Bob also says: “The models aren't perfect, but they don't have to be.” Let me get this straight: all the catastrophic predictions of the Global Warming Alarmists are based on climate models, but Bob thinks that they don’t have to be accurate? I’m speechless, simply speechless.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

:::EDIT:::

In response to Bob…

Bob says: “Which also answers the ridiculous comment below that imperfect models are not good enough. They're good enough to prove that the problem is mostly man made greenhouse gases, and that action against those will have the greatest impact on the problem”

Unfortunately for Bob, the imperfect models are so bad that they could just as easily predict cooling! See this report (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf ) on the validity of the IPCC’s climate predictions. The writers conclude…

“In our audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report, we found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We concluded that the forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. Instead, policies should be based on forecasts from scientific forecasting methods. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”

Thus, the predictions are absolutely valueless.

It is, therefore, ridiculous to suggest that they prove anything at all.

Answer 2

It's a very valid point that you make. Can't comment specifically on the chart you're referring to as not sure which one it is. It's an out of date one as recent charts take into account more than nine forcings.

Greenhouse gases are by far the largest contributor and it's these that are best understood. The factors with a low or very low level of understanding are lesser contributors. In other words, we know about the important ones, we don't know as much about the less important ones. In truth, the role of greenhouse gases alone overshadows that of every other component combined, even if we understood nothing about these other components we'd still know that the positive forcings outweigh the negatives, the world has no option but to warm and greenhouse gases are the largest contributor.

Further, when scientists talk about having a low level of understanding it doesn't mean they don't know the important factors. For example, we have a very low level of understanding of gravity, light, the universe, even the Earth itself. We do know they exist, what they do, what the effects are etc . Similarly, in respect of say sulphate forcings, we know what they do, how they contribute to global cooling, what effect thay have on the climate but we don't know the precise chemical and physical interactions and therefore consider this to be an area with a low level of understanding. In scientific terms we could understand 90% of something and it would be described as a possibility, something that's not well understood.

Climate chnage can be likened to cancer, we know it's happening and we know it's getting worse. The longer we delay in taking action the harder it becomes to treat, the greater the chance or ireparable damage and the more costly it becomes.

If we take action now and the whole thing turns out to be false we could have blown anything up to a trillion dollars. If we don't take action we could lose four trillion dollars each and every year, 2.5 billion people forced to emigrate, 40% of species wiped out, economic meltdown, possible wars over such basic commodities as food and water and millions of people dead. The longer we wait the worse the odds and we're gambling with the only planet we have.

Answer 3

They are under so much political pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia their findings are watered down to almost nothing. For example, in their first report, they were forced to leave out any effects on climate by the human race entirey! That included things that have been universally agreed on for more than a hundred years. That allowed the sellouts and baboons to start saying that it could be just a natural process. If you check the calendar, you won't find mention of that until after that report was published. They've been repeating it ever since, like neanderthals pounding a drum hoping to cause rain.

In their second report the USA and Saudia Arabia (the only dissenters) they were allowed to include it after Congress in the United States had forced the Bush Administration to stop censuring the official reports by the American Scientific bodies (paid for by taxpayers). The IPPC tried to keep it in at about 1/2 it's value (if you count things like the internal combustion engine and burning coal). Even that had to be reduced to about 1/3 of THAT value, before it was allowed out there.

I feel for IPCC and I don't think we should give up on them. The kind of censureship that is taking place on this subject hasn't been seen since the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Right now, surprisingly enough the best information available is coming out of the UN. I just knew those guys would do something right eventually!

Answer 4

Marc, you're are indeed wrong. Here's exactly why.

The ratings you cite are for the uncertainty of a parameter, RELATIVE to the value of that parameter.

So we don't know exactly how much warming certain things cause. It doesn't matter. Say the estimated value is 4%. The estimated error is a factor of 2. That's huge, and causes the estimate to be given a low ranking re uncertainty. It might be as little as 2% or as much as 8%. It is not 25%.

Taking all that into consideration scientists agree that 80-90% of global warming is caused by man made greenhouse gases.

The models aren't perfect, but they don't have to be. In statistical jargon the "signal" from greenhouse gases is so strong it dominates everything else. Regardless of the exact model used or how it's tweaked. One example:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Leave man made greenhouse gases out of any theory and that theory can't possibly explain the warming of the last 40 years. The key word in this quote is "quantitative".

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

So we don't need to wait. We have more than enough information to begin reducing greenhouse gases. Which is good. Because global warming is like a rock rolling downhill. Early on you can stop it. Wait, and it will simply flatten you.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT - Here's the basic idea, using the most obvious example, linear contrails. Look at the chart:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Our understanding is "low". And it absolutely doesn't matter. _No matter what_, linear contrails are not important. We don't know EXACTLY what they are (which is what is meant by "low" understanding), but we know enough to know they are _very_ small. They're not causing significant warming. Other factors with low understanding are COOLING factors. But we know there is warming. So, our uncertainty about the cooling factors does not affect the conclusion that the warming is caused by greenhouse gases. _No matter what_, aerosols are not causing warming, even if our understanding is rated "low". The "low" understanding is only a question of just how bad the situation with man made greenhouse gases is, very bad or really really bad.

The only thing to which one of the other of these arguments (or both) do not overwhelmingly apply is tropospheric ozone. And there our understanding is medium and, tropospheric ozone is still not enough to drive the observed warming of the past 40 years. ONLY greenhouse gases can be causing that.

The bottom line. You raised a philosophical argument, based on "general principles". But, when looking at the data _quantitatively_, it can be seen that our low understanding of some factors cannot negate the scientific conclusion that the present warming is mostly due to man made greenhouse gases.

Which also answers the ridiculous comment below that imperfect models are not good enough. They're good enough to prove that the problem is mostly man made greenhouse gases, and that action against those will have the greatest impact on the problem. If you're measuring wood to frame a house, you don't need a micrometer. A tape measure reading to 1/16 inch is more than you need to frame the house. Our models are better than we need to know that it's man made greenhouse gases that are the most important thing.

And that's why there is a scientific consensus. Consensus is not proof. But BECAUSE of the data, there is consensus. This is mostly a man made problem. No other explanation can QUANTITATIVELY explain the warming of the past 40 years.

EDIT2 - "They like to make the claim that water vapor is a feedback, and therefore should not be considered a forcing, but this makes no sense in the physical world."

This is a typical global warming denier argument. "makes no sense". The fact is that, when you quantitatively look at the data ( a key factor is numerically how long water vapor stays in the air compared to CO2, the "residence time"), that's the way it works. The bottom line is this. Laypeople argue using philosophy or logic. Scientists use numbers, and the numbers say global warming is mostly due to man made greenhouse gases. Read the Mahlman quote again. "quantitative" should be capitalized.

Answer 5

I don't know which is more impressive - Marc's question or Chuck's answer. I won't try and restate or improve on Chuck's answer only to add the glaring omission of water vapor and clouds (except when clouds support their models). They like to make the claim that water vapor is a feedback, and therefore should not be considered a forcing, but this makes no sense in the physical world. The Earth has no idea or concern where that radiative energy comes from, or how long the molecules producing that effect have been in the atmosphere.

Given how much fudging they do to make their models work, it doesn't surprise me they end up with "low scientific understanding" of these factors.

Answer 6

No, because even for the "low" understanding factors (many of which were just recently "very low" and have since improved), they have error bars. Thus we know the range of possible total forcings.

"Shouldn't we be waiting on policy prescriptions until we actually have a firm grasp on what each RF factor and its implications for cliimate cahnge?"

Absolutely not. If the worst or even median case scenarios are true and we wait on policy changes, we may not make any changes until it's too late. Waiting in the hopes that the projections are wrong is like playing Russian roulette with a bunch of bullets in the gun.

"Why am I wrong in thinking that we need more time and patience when it comes to making policy regarding climate change?"

Because waiting could prove to be a fatal mistake, and taking action will benefit us anyway, as we'll reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a limited resource anyway and has other biproducts besides greenhouse gases.

*edit* - you don't seem to understand the error bars. Each forcing has an error bar - it has 'x' forcing plus or minus 'y'. 'x' is the most likely value, but the actual value will fall within 'x' plus or minus 'y'. Thus we know the possible range of each forcing. Plus as mentioned, the 'low' understanding forcings are the ones with the least impact or the ones which cause cooling.

Answer 7

Look at the natural RF's. The output of solar radiation is well measured. Volcanic emissions are well estimated. Their impact is nowhere near enough to cause this climate change. Only when you add anthropogenic* sourcs will you get a climate model that correlates with what is seen in temperature changes
Although there is uncertainty regarding how much a certain anthropogenic source effects us it is still shown, with almost certainty, that human emissions are effecting the climate. I think you are clinging to excuses that can be costly.

*Anthropogenic equals man made.

Answer 8

You are not wrong. But the government has people scared, which is where they want them. If the average person had enough intelligence to stop and think before acting, then they would come to realize GW is not something we can control but a natural cycle.
Free Tibet.