UPDATE 1
Sat 16 Oct 2010 10:20
I’ve returned to the familiar CCG style for now. Since the new style wasn’t giving us everything we wanted, there was no point in leaving it there. As I look around the Internet I see little that I like; finding a good blog theme is not proving easy. If anyone wants to give links to excellent themes, I’d be grateful. – Richard T
Open threads have been put up today, as requested by several very active members of our Conversation. They’re accessible from the menu bar (look for Open threads) and the sidebar on the right. I guess I should start to move relevant comments from the “Housekeeping” post to the new topics.
The record number of comments previously was 68 recorded on “Observations on NIWA’s Statement of Defence” but now the record is up to 138 143 161 recorded on “World of sceptical questions unfolds…“. Rodney take note: see what you started? (thanks again)
Views: 724
May I request some more Open threads please:
Misc Climate Related Articles
Global Cooling
AGW – Busted
Carbon CO2
Climate Driver Hypotheses
Climate Blogs
Climate Models
Climate Scientists
Climate Science Papers
Climate Information Resources
Climate Change Propaganda
United Nations General
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
IPCC FAR
IPCC SAR
IPCC TAR
IPCC AR4
IPCC AR5
NIPCC
Climate Scene – New Zealand
Climate Scene – Australia
Climate Scene – USA
Climate Scene – UK
Climate Scene – Europe
Climate Scene – Asia
Climate Economic Impacts
Climategate
Land Temperature Records UHI
Satellite Systems
Solar – Cosmic
Ocean Heat Content
Atmospheric Thermodynamics Heat
Hydrological Cycle Evaporation Water Vapour
Organisations
Greens Environmentalists Totalitarians
Theres some threads from “World of sceptical questions unfolds…” that could come across.
Climate Models
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25684
Climate Propaganda
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25579
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25742
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25747
Metacommenting
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25540
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/#comment-25645
Climate Models
Climate Propaganda
Metacommenting
Superseded by
Climate Models and Clouds in Models
Climate Change Propaganda
Metacommenting MetaHousekeeping and MetaTips
More Threads Please
Albedo Earthshine Reflectivity and Clouds
Argo Project
Metecommenting
Please change Climate Models to :
Climate Madels and Clouds in Models
Oops
ARGO Project
Oops again (Its too early for this)
Metacommenting
Hot Topic ?
“Hot Topic” would obviously be picked up in Climate Blogs initially but may become a “special” category
Climate Controversies News MMCC Scepticism and the Main Stream Media
Climate Politics and Political Positions
Combine
Ocean Heat Content ARGO Project
Change
“AGW – Busted”
to
AGW – Busted AGW Theory and Counter Theory
Or better
AGW Busted – Theory and Counter Theory
NZCSET v NIWA
Troublesome Trolls (I’m serious)
I wouldn’t suggest this because in my experience some people search for their acronym on the net so you could encourage trolls; my personal experience on other blogs is ‘don’t encourage the trolls’; because in a limited life span you don’t have time to waste
Good point
I was thinking of strategies in view of experiences at JoNova, Climate Dispatch, Hot Topic.
I am quite happy to engage with the opposition because I have learned a great deal by doing so strangely. It also means that a good riposte must be backed by evidence, argument, paper references etc so you’ve got to know your stuff and forces you to do homework and keep up with critical developments.
But the thread name could do with some work.
DEBATING?.
Change
“Greens Environmentalists Totalitarians”
to
Ideology: Green Guardian Totalitarian and Leftism
Energy: Green Renewable Wind Solar PV Coal Thermal Hydro Nuclear Prices Economics
Change
“Energy: Renewable Wind Solar PV Coal Thermal Hydro Nuclear Prices Economics”
to
Energy: Wind Solar PV Coal Thermal Hydro Nuclear Prices Economics Failures and Controversies
Climate Science
Climate Change Law and Consequences
Oops again
Climate Models and Clouds in Models
Plus a thread
Climate Phenomena Natural Cycles and Weather
“Climate Phenomena Natural Cycles and Weather”
Would be better
Climate Change Natural Cycles Phenomena and Weather
Change
“Climate Change Natural Cycles Phenomena and Weather”
to
Climate Change Natural Cycles Phenomena NH v SH and Weather
New List (V 2.0)
NZCSET v NIWA
Misc Climate Related News and Articles
Global Cooling
AGW Busted: Theory and Counter Theory
Carbon CO2
Climate Driver Hypotheses
Climate Blogs
Climate Models and Clouds in Models
Climate Science: Science Papers Scientists and Information Resources
Climate Change: Natural Cycles Phenomena NH v SH and Weather
Climate Change Propaganda
Climate Change Law: ETS Carbon Taxes International Impositions and Consequences
(Respectfully request “ETS and Carbon Taxes” be superseded)
United Nations General
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
IPCC FAR
IPCC SAR
IPCC TAR
IPCC AR4
IPCC AR5
NIPCC
Climate Scene – New Zealand
(Respectfully request “New Zealand Issues” be superseded for consistency)
Climate Scene – Australia
Climate Scene – USA
Climate Scene – UK
Climate Scene – Europe
Climate Scene – Asia
Climate: Economic Impacts
Climate: Politics and Political Positions
Climate: Controversies News MMCC Scepticism Climategate and the Main Stream Media
Energy: Wind Solar PV Coal Thermal Hydro Nuclear Prices Economics Failures and Controversies
Land Temperature Records UHI
Satellite Systems
Solar – Cosmic
Albedo Earthshine Reflectivity and Clouds
Ocean Heat Content and ARGO Project
Atmospheric Thermodynamics and Heat
Hydrological Cycle: Evaporation and Water Vapour
Organisations: Societies Universities Companies Greenpeace WWF ET AL
Ideology: Green Guardian Totalitarian and Leftism
Troublesome Trolls
Metacommenting MetaHousekeeping and MetaTips
Oh, this is good, you’ve collated all the suggestions into a single list. Thanks, it saves me doing it! I’ll let it sit a while and decide the ones we need now. At the moment we’re not discussing most of these topics, so they’re not needed immediately. In addition, where overlap exists, we apply tags or categories to the post, so avoiding the need for a separate thread.
You’ve had some fun refining the categories, Richard C! As ex-librarian at the NZ Herald I’m familiar with the process of cataloguing and I like it, too. It will be interesting to see how our views of the essential categories match up. Thanks for your work, it helps a lot.
Don’t know about others, I would MUCH rather spend my time in Open thread discussion than post discussion.
There’s some situations developing in the international arena of AGW Proponent – AGW/MMCC Sceptic combatantcy.
The Open thread forums would be a HUGE resource.in this respect.
I see. I’ll add more categories soon (each one is easy, but not an instantaneous task); in the meantime, feel free to start filling the existing threads.
Richard C:
What is meant by MMCC? I guess you don’t mean “Mobile Mini Circus for Children”!
Ha!
In case you were expecting a reply – Man Made Climate Change
Ha ha. Now I see the joke. No, I really didn’t get MMCC. Momentary blind spot.
“You’ve had some fun refining the categories, Richard C! As ex-librarian at the NZ Herald I’m familiar with the process of cataloguing:
Being an Ex Corporate Researcher and Intel Administrator helps
As does experience in Energy Sector and Alternative Energy Research and Analysis with the attendant information mgt requirements.
Used News Clipping Service BTW
First job of the day – crunch NZ Herald!
“I’ve returned to the familiar CCG style for now”
Use-ability of “familiar” from a comment perspective – Ugh! (BLOCKS2 light years ahead IMO)
Readability of “familiar – better than BLOCKS2
Narrow format of “familiar – Yuk! (IMO)
Post clarity of “familiar” – better than BLOCKS2
Utility of discussion – not a patch on BLOCKS2 (Take a look at “World of sceptical questions unfolds…”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/world-of-sceptical-questions-unfolds%E2%80%A6/
i.e. “familiar” would be a pain in the a**** [En] in Open thread discussion IMO
I agree with each point you make, and even the enthusiasm with which you make them.
But I’m not prepared to do any more work on customising Blocks2, knowing we’re not going to keep it. Attractiveness is the top of the list because it can draw in those who know little of AGW. Blocks2 would tend to do the opposite and drive those without a taste for the subject away.
I tend to think that the drawbacks of Freshy2 (the familiar) don’t stop us talking. Freshy2 would be suitable to keep, but behind-the-scenes access to the style sheets is quite difficult. There are themes which make customisation much easier.
Yes, understand.
I’m sure the experiment has provided pointers for the way ahead.
Metablogging?
and talking of trolls here’s the ultimate putdown by Anna V on WUWT in the category of Prof Lewis’ resignation
Your argument doesn’t make sense. It is a lame hypothesis for the purpose of rationalizing your position.
No, if my exposition does not make sense your response is entrenched denial of any other possibility of looking at the world except as a Chicken Little.
I described an analogy to what happened to me, a retired 70 year old particle physicist. Until three years ago I was going with the tide on AGW precisely because I trusted on the integrity of scientists in other disciplines assuming they were working as rigorously within the scientific method. I have over forty years experience with modeling theory in computer programs and comparing with data.
In my case, as I am naive on world politics and mass movements, I started smelling fish when reading somewhere that there was no medieval warm period. I said “what the $%^”. My encyclopedic knowledge included not only the vikings cultivating Greenland but also that in the byzantine period there was a year where they gathered two crops, it was so temperate. At that time, the hunter who was found in the Alps was in the news. Bells started ringing. It is obvious that if the passes were open when he was hunting the temperature must have been higher than the one when the snows melted so that he could be found. That was the beginning of the thread , and discussions with another physicist in a different field, who challenged me to read up and present to our retired scientists lecture series a lecture on global warming. I started digging into the TAR first and into AR4. My physicist’s conclusion is that they, AGWmers, have taken great liberties with physics and enormous license with programing and created a video world of their expectations and presented it as “experiments” !!!! of all things.
The physics foundations are flimsy, and even though I have a lecture that I keep updating,( there are six “predictions” of the models that falsify them), the simplest argument comes from the weather projections: climate projections use the same logic and maths in programs as weather projections. Would you trust weather reports two weeks ahead on whether to carry an umbrella or not? Sometimes they are wrong even for two days ahead. And AGWmers ask the world community to create economic hara kiri, and condemn the third world to starvation, on such unscientific arguments.
I just extended my experience to a logical falling of the scales from prof. Lewis’ eyes.
It is more likely that we are looking at some kind of age related dementia.
Well, I am amazed that you can look and reason in coherent sentences through your early onset dementia. Science is great on medications . I hope you are not on a hara kiri advisory committee.
I can do ad homs as well as anybody.
Wish I had that expertise!
That is an excellent example – there’s some very good ones also at Jo Nova’s Hal Lewis post
Val please see my response to your Troublesome Trolls comment.
A better Thread would be Debating or Debating Strategies in the Climate Change Arena – perhaps.
Well; Richard how about RE
I think some debate about fossil fuel v other sources of energy might add to the debate and at least add some argument to the ‘precautionary princlple aspect’
so the category would be ‘Renewable Energy’
Val , you can’t see this at the moment because I’ve got a lot of stuff in moderation but what I am doing is calling myself THREAD and setting up thread headers in the Open categories with the category title in bold.
So I was actually suggesting a specific thread titled DEBATING.
And yes, in the Energy and Fuel category there will be appropriate thread headers.
You could call yourself THREAD or HEADER and do the same thing. Just putting comments in ad hoc wont get us anywhere in the specified discussion categories (OK here).
I have a lot of opinions on Wind Energy, with info to back it up.
I think that is a great idea
and Australia has two very good experts and possibly three
One other thing; my preference is that people put their full names rather than some acronym; my view is that if you have an opinion then you should stand by it; I know that on the internet it currently seems to be all acronyms but in my view this detracts from the credibility of statements or replies; why are people so frightened to use their right name; I use my full name on all blogs but others rarely do; just a comment; what do others think?
Yes, Problem for me is that there are loftier Richard C’s e.g Richard S. Courtney and I don’t feel I’ve graduated to the level of stepping ou in my full name but will do in time. For the moment it is better for me to have some anonymity (other circumstances too).
I’m Richard C (NZ) internationally.
Okay Richard; I accept that but I think I know your surname; but accepting what you say; what do others say; quite often I think that people use acronyms because they think what they say is not important enough; but adding a surname does add credibility; for example Anna V would have added to her credibility if she had put her full name
Real cred is when you can call your self JN for example and everyone knows who you are.
I particularly like the acronym MMH10. Insignificant name but one of THE most significant papers.
Okay; I’ve got no cred but I’ll still use my full name;
I’m Richard Cumming at JD’s personal Blog (Not the DT one)
Seems appropriate there.
BTW Please use the “Reply” button, otherwise you’ll get lost in the morass (soup)
thank you Richard, I did know your surname; and I congratulate you on your energy in educating simplons (is that a word) like me – I do enjoy this blog – one thing I like about this and other blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova is that people with a far greater scientific knowledge than I have don’t talk down to lay people like me
sorry, I think the word is simpletons
Remember the Reply button – I do the same thing myself (especially if you are used to JoNova).
Don’t underestimate your knowledge. The scope of potential discussion is so huge, nobody’s going to know everything. My experience has been that I’m saying the same things as recognized experts in some discussions (models etc in my case and Miskolczi – Spencer excluded))
Pick your zone(s) and get expert at that(those), there’s no point in us being all expert at the same thing. We need specialist Gurus, being a layman doesn’t preclude you (Stephen Wilde’s figured a lot of the science – he’s a Solicitor).
Also remember that we in NZ are 2 plus hours ahead of OZ (time for dinner and bed – 10:20pm here)
thanks Richard wise words;
I may have missed them, but:
1. Cosmic rays
2. Magnetic fields (Sun, Earth)
3. Cloud formation (related to #1, #2)
eg
Lecture on Cosmic rays and climate by Physicist Jasper Kirkby of CERN
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2525
Magnetic Fields of the Sun & Earth, Cosmic Rays and how they affect Cloud Formation, and thus Climate
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2526
The Geomagnetic Model of Climate Change
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/forum/94
For me the Jasper Kirkby lecture is one of the best single sources of a realistic view.
Steve, please duplicate these respective items in the ‘Open Threads’ drop down menu categories.
e.g. 1, 2, in Solar – ‘Open Threads’ drop down menu
“The Geomagnetic Model of Climate Change” as a Reply to CLIMATE DRIVER HYPOTHESES in the
“Climate science” category, ‘Open Thread’ drop down menu.
Or as your fancy tickles you.
Excellent post BTW
It’s in Solar
Keywords: in comments (including thread headers) and keyword lists
Andy, RT.
Now that all the thread headers are in place in Open Threads and there’s a lot of good quality comments, the search engines have found CCG as evidenced by the Alexa rankings (See Climate: Climate Conversations v Hot Topic, Alexa Traffic Stats).
But what we do not have is specific “Keywords” lists (H/T Andy).
To my mind there are 2 options (plus, the do nothing, and, there’s no rush):-
Option 1.
One MASSIVE keyword list under the Open Threads post page index list. – RT’s domain.
Option 2.
Specific keywords lists sequestered (like it?) among the main categories.
e.g. From:
A NULL HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2, Roy Clark, Ph.D.
Keywords: Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect, Maunder
Minimum, Meteorological Surface Air Temperature, Milankovitch Cycles, Ocean
Warming, Radiative Forcing, Radiative Transfer, Sunspot Cycle.
So it’s a simple copy n paste and a Reply to Climate Science in this case.
It would be more efficient to compile more extensive lists from several papers and blog posts e. g. Judith Curry’s climate models series.
This would REALLY bring in the search engines and perhaps the eyes also this time.
I prefer Option 2. – we can drive it from our end and it’s hands-off for RT.
Thoughts anyone?
My thinking is that it will be best to hold off for a while before “sequestering” keywords lists.
Reason being, that CCG Open Threads is somewhat under the radar at the moment and that is a good thing.
It gives us time to set it up with debunking material everywhere.
For example, I have already put a one liner under “Ocean Acidification” but I will also put Dennis Ambler’s “Acid Seas – Back to Basic” from SPPI up there as well.
That way, when we do sequester the keywords lists and the Trolls follow the search engines they wont know where to start.
Thoughts?
In a communication to Joanne Nova, I defined “Open Threads” as:
“a laizze faire, pseudo-Hierarchical DBMS utilizing pseudo-Relational DBMS “pointers”, complete with comments – a bit messy but works fantastically”.
i.e. 2 DBMS methodologies at work simultaneously in a pseudo fashion and now being integrated internationally with other Blogs e.g. JoNova and Errors in IPCC climate science – Warwick Hughes. See CLIMATE BLOGS.
Very powerful.
Thoughts anyone?
It turns out that:
“Option 1.
One MASSIVE keyword list under the Open Threads post page index list. – RT’s domain.
Option 2.
Specific keywords lists sequestered (like it?) among the main categories.”
is a BAD idea.
See Jo Nova’s comment in regard to this here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-27133
New Zealand Search Engines
October 27th 2010 Visibility %
……………………….CCG……HT
AGW…………………..37……..2
Sea levels………….29……27
Acidification………..21…..12
Polar regions……..12…….0
ETS………………………7…..16
Atmosphere…………6……..0
Total Visibility……..19…..10
Using Rank Tracker
New Zealand Search Engines
October 27th 2010 Visibility %
……………….CCG…..HT
AGW……………..37……2
Sea levels……….29…..27
Acidification…….21…..12
Polar regions…….12……0
ETS………………7…..16
Atmosphere………..6……0
Joanne Nova’s JoNova posts keywords
http://joannenova.com.au/?page_id=4987&preview=true
Richard, thanks for the suggestions, I am very proud of my Index, and the archives page is pretty useful too sometimes (though I suspect mainly for me, as I can remember which month and which headline matches “what” information).
Remember, regarding Alexa that outside links coming in are very important. I’ve compared sites and there is at least one political blog that gets less traffic than me, but “ranks” higher than I do in Australia — partly because it has twice as many incoming links (and partly because my traffic is US based as much as Australian based.).
The only way to get natural links from external sites that count, is, dare I say it, with really useful content. I hear that google is not impressed with “list sites”. remember for a while when those fako list pages kept making to the top of Google searches as people gamed the google search engine?
I didn’t generate the Index page for alexa or google. I darn well need it myself — otherwise I can’t find things. 🙂
And us at CCG now. I’ve set up links to JoNova ARCHIVES and INDEX under “Climate”: Climate Blogs – JoNova
Yes – good point. “Open Threads” would fall into the category of “list sites” unfortunately.
So it would be better to go with “really useful content” instead of keyword lists sequestered around Open Threads – thanks for the tip Jo.
You are not alone there. I have massive bookmark folders (especially climate science), but Open Threads is making it easier to “find things” quickly. The CCG INDEX is a huge advantage.
C3 has had an epiphany re unlocking information regarding non-consensus global warming science that was hidden away in their Blog after years of posts.
Peer-Reviewed Studies: Documenting The Evidence That Disproves The IPCC Global Warming Science
[Need a new source for peer-reviewed studies? Go here. Below is an explanation of what this post is about.]
About two years ago, ‘C3 Headlines’ was started as an effort to report on interesting reports and science regarding the non-CAGW view of climate change. Although it was not planned, we ended up reading many an article about specific peer-reviewed studies that disagreed with the IPCC global warming science claims, which often resulted in a C3 posting.
Over time and some 2,100 posts later, we got interested in how many peer-reviewed articles we actually referenced in our posts. We manually did a count, and to our amazement, we’ve referenced over 500 peer-reviewed studies that take issue with the IPCC science on climate change.
Unfortunately, conducting this count turned to be a ludicrously laborious exercise since we did not have the foresight to categorize those ‘C3’ postings as being based on a peer-reviewed study. So, while doing the count, we actually marked each of those 500+ older posts as peer-reviewed based.
Okay, what does all the above mean? For those bloggers or individuals seeking the original source of information regarding non-consensus global warming science, ‘C3’ has a new peer-reviewed category that lists all (past and future) C3 postings that reference peer-reviewed studies/research. Each posting has a link that will lead (directly or indirectly) the reader to the peer-reviewed study source. This new C3 category link can be found near the bottom of each C3 web page, where all category links are located.
So for CCG Open Threads (OT), all we need to do is put C3 in “Climate:” “Climate Blogs” with a sub-heading “Peer Reviewed Studies”. A similar link can be made in “Climate Science:” “CLIMATE SCIENCE INFORMATION RESOURCES”.
C3 also has a “Charts/Images” category containing “CO2/Greenhouse” “Climate Models” etc that can be linked under the “C3” header. There is a condition for use that I will put in a note under the link.
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. has similar categories e.g. “Main Conclusions” “Entries Tagged as ‘Climate Change Forcings & Feedbacks’” and “Entries Tagged as ‘Climate Models’”, so the same simple linkage can be made from Open Threads (OT).
RTM discussion
Radiative Heat Transfer: Simple Overview
I asked these 2 questions at the AER RTWG
—————————————————————————————————————————–
IPCC Assessment Reports – AER RTWG ?
Postby Richard C (NZ) » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:58 pm
2 questions here for someone employed at AER or RTWG (or someone else with the answer).
The Homepage of the Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.’s (AER) Radiative Transfer Working Group website states:
“The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements.”
Question 1. I am researching climate models that are validated in this way (from New Zealand and not a LBLRTM user) and would like to know if AER RTWG was acknowledged or cited by IPCC AR4 in any way?
A short answer here and reference if applicable would save me some AR4 pain.
Question 2. Will AER RTWG be making a submission to IPCC AR5?
Richard Cumming,
Climate Conversation Group,
New Zealand.
————————————————————————————————————————–
This was the response from Mike Iacono AER
————————————————————————————————————————–
Richard,
Our approach is to develop and evaluate radiation models in the context
of high-resolution measurements and to collaborate with the dynamical
modeling groups that choose to apply our radiation code to their global
model. We do not currently maintain or run our own climate model.
The only group that I’m aware of that was using one of our radiation
codes for AR4 simulations was the Max Planck Institute in their ECHAM5
model. At that time they used only a somewhat early version of our RRTM
longwave code. This is documented in the Roeckner et al, 2003 reference
cited in Chapter 8 of AR4 and in Wild and Roeckner, J. Climate, 2006.
Our work to evaluate climate models with satellite radiances was also cited
in AR4 in Chapter 8 (Iacono et al., JGR, 2003).
ECHAM6 will include our latest RRTMG longwave and shortwave codes,
and the NCAR CAM5/CESM1 atmosphere and coupled climate models
have recently been released with RRTMG. It is probable that at least
some of the IPCC simulations for AR5 will be completed with these models.
Best Regards,
Mike
My thanks to AER.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Mike,
Thank you very much for your response and thanks also to Jennifer and
Eli (esteinhu?).
I have posted this at two blogs where radiative transfer and heating
is topical:-
Climate Conversation Group (NZ)
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28361
The Inconvenient Skeptic (USA)
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-simple-overview/comment-page-1/
There is a lot to be learned in this field and the information you
have provided will help us on the way – especially the AR4 references
and paper citations.
I for one will be watching developments in this arena with interest in
the lead up to AR5.
Cheers to all,
Richard Cumming (NZ)
Same questions but left at The Inconvenient Skeptic
—————————————————————————————————————————
TIS – or anyone,
I’m compiling links to RTM’s for this website in New Zealand https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-27279 but now have a knowledge gap to cross.
I have separated GCM’s into 2 categories: the IPCC RF stable is in “Climate” and Non-IPCC Natural RF is in “Climate Science” as in the link above.
My problem now is that I don’t know how RTM’s are implemented in GCM’s i.e do most modeling centres create in-house RTM modules for their AOGCM’s as for example GISS does (I think)? Or do they uplift an off-the-shelf RTM to insert as a module in their GCM? Or is it a combination of both? Or have I got this all wrong?
My thinking is that an RTM is untainted by IPCC CO2 driven RF methodology as long as it is outside of the IPCC stable of GCM’s but as soon as an RTM is integrated in an IPCC RF GCM, Hansen’s formulations must come into play somewhere in the code.
I have left 2 questions at “AER’s Radiative Transfer Working Group A forum to share information, tips and tricks” http://rtweb.aer.com/forums/index.php?sid=74586ad4edc1ccbe428d04c90aff0f78 the home of the LBLRTM but unfortunately nobody’s home there (have they folded?).
For ease of discussion, I have started a thread at Climate Conversation Group (NZ) “RTM discussion” https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28251 and would appreciate replies here and then there for continued discussion.
Our national atmospheric and water institution (NIWA – a warmist enclave) has recently commissioned the SH’s swankyest supercomputer and will be running the UKMO’s UM (IPCC stable – HadGEM family) for regional simulations so I really want to get a handle on Radiative Transfer in both IPCC RF and Non-IPCC RF models.
BTW, I was drawn to AER by this “The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements”
Cheers,
Richard Cumming
—————————————————————————————————————————-
With the answer provided by Mike (AER) up-thread, I will be able (hopefully) to follow through and check out just how “tainted” by CO2 (or not) the RRTM and RRTMG modules become after integration into ECHAM5, ECHAM6 and NCAR CAM5/CESM1.
It will be interesting to see where the results of these models lie in intercomparison studies given AER’s foundation “The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements”
Climate Model Intercomparison – Google Search
CFMIP – Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project
AMIP – Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project
CMIP – Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
8.1.2.1 – Model Intercomparisons and Ensembles – AR4 WGI Chapter 8
PCMDI Publications – Reviewed Literature
PCMDI Report Series – Report Abstracts
PCMDI Report No. 45
An Overview of the Results of the Atmospheric Model
Intercomparison Project (AMIP)
THE SECOND CMIP WORKSHOP
OVERVIEW OF THE COUPLED MODEL INTERCOMPARISON PROJECT (CMIP)
CMIP5 Overview
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI)
Presented to the IS-ENES 1st General Assembly
Barcelona, Spain
26 May 2010
—————————————————————————————————–
CMIP5 – Website http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov
CMIP5 – Modeling Info Forcing Data
1. Recommended CMIP5 solar forcing data.
2. Greenhouse Gas Concentration data 08 Dec 2009.
3. Emissions data. 14 Jan 2010.
4. Land-use data. 31 Aug 2009.
5. The AC&C/SPARC ozone database. New data 25 Mar 2010.
6. The AMIP Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice datasets.
7. Specifications for CFMIP-inspired experiments.
[i.e. All the participating models will be forced by the same datasets (including bogus CO2) so a massive incestuous group-think exercise but useful for model intercomparison nevertheless.]
CMIP5 – Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 – Overview
CMIP is a standard experimental protocol for studying the output of coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (GCMs). It provides a community-based infrastructure in support of climate model diagnosis, validation, intercomparison, documentation and data access.
The purpose of these experiments is to address outstanding scientific questions that arose as part of the IPCC AR4 (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report) process, improve understanding of climate, and to provide estimates of future climate change that will be useful to those considering its possible consequences.
IPCC/CMIP5 schedule
2010
• Modeling groups begin production runs and produce CMIP5 output.
• May: ESG software, which will serve model output, is released.
• July: First model output expected to be available for analysis. Data Portal
• November 8-11: First Lead Authors Meeting (LA1), Kunming, China
– preprints, papers submitted, accepted, in press, and published are all eligible for consideration
2011
• July 18-22: Second Lead Authors Meeting (LA2)
• October 24-28: WCRP Open Science Conference will include a CMIP5 session (Denver, Colorado)
• December 16 – February 10, 2012: Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD)
2012
• Early in year: CMIP5 Workshop
• April 16-20, 2012: Third Lead Authors Meeting (LA3)
• July 31, 2012: By this date papers must be submitted for publication to be eligible for assessment by WG1.
• October 5 – November 30: Expert and Government Review of the Second Order Draft (SOD)
2013
• January 14-19: Fourth Lead Authors Meeting (LA4)
• March 15: By this date papers cited by WG1 must be published or accepted (with proof, for example, by a letter of confirmation from the editor)
• June 7 – August 2: Final Government Distribution of the WGI AR5 Summary for Policymakers (SPM)
• September 13-14: Preparatory Meeting of WGI AR5 SPM/TS Writing Team and Convening Lead Authors
• September 16-19: WGI AR5 SPM Approval Plenary
Surface Air Temperature Simulations by AMIP General Circulation Models: Volcanic and ENSO Signals and Systematic Errors – Intercomparison Results
Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland, August 1997
THE WCRP CMIP3 MULTIMODEL DATASET – Intercomparison Results
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY SEPTEMBER 2007
GCSS Teams with CFMIP to Understand the Physical Mechanisms of Low Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models
GEWEX News May 2010
Is There a Missing Low Cloud Feedback in Current Climate Models?
GEWEX News February 2010
Both articles – MUST READ
This is up-to-date, cutting-edge science.
Anyone reading these articles will rapidly get up speed on the most decisive issues in current climate science.
From:
“Is There a Missing Low Cloud Feedback in Current Climate Models?”
The net consequence of these biases is that the optical depth of low clouds in GCMs is more than a factor of two greater than observed, resulting in albedos of clouds that are too high. This model low-cloud albedo bias is not a new finding and is not a feature of just these two models. The study of Allan et al. (2007), for example, also noted how the reflection by low-level clouds in the unified model of the UK Meteorological Office is significantly larger than matched satellite observations of albedo, suggesting that this bias also exists in that model.
[Note: NIWA has implemented the UKMO UM singled out here]
The mean LWP of model clouds that contributed to this in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment is close to 200 g/m2, which is also nearly a factor of two larger than observed. The implication of this optical depth bias that owes its source to biases in both the LWP and particle sizes is that the solar radiation reflected by low clouds is significantly enhanced in models compared to real clouds. This reflected sunlight bias has significant implications for the cloud-climate feedback problem. The consequence is that this bias artificially suppresses the low cloud optical depth feedback in models by almost a factor of four and thus its potential role as a negative feedback. This bias explains why the optical depth feedback is practically negligible in most global models (e.g., Colman et al., 2003) and why it has received scant attention in low cloud feedback discussion. These results are also relevant to the model biases in absorbed solar radiation discussed recently by Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) and as explored in more detail in Stephens et al. (2010).
From;
“GCSS Teams with CFMIP to Understand the Physical Mechanisms of Low Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models”
The CGILS objectives are: (1) to understand the physical mechanisms of cloud feedbacks in GCMs by using Single-Column Models (SCMs); and (2) to assess the physical credibility of low cloud processes in the SCMs by using cloud-resolving models (CRM) and large eddy simulations (LES).
[Snip]
GCM simulations from the NCAR CAM3 and GFDL AM2, as well as simulations from the super-parameterized CAM [uses a CRM module] were used as a guide to how forcings will change if sea surface temperature (SST) is uniformly warmed to 2K as a representative climate perturbation.
[Snip]
Preliminary SCM Results
Many SCM simulated low clouds at S11 are similar to those in the parent GCM. In some models a constant forcing at a single point can represent GCM cloud processes, while in other models this is not the case. This feature depends upon the mechanism used for cloud generation in the models. An interesting result obtained by LMD/IPSL was that when a random transient component is added to the large-scale forcing, SCM simulated clouds and feedbacks are more representative of their GCM. Other CGILS groups will explore the importance of time-varying forcing to reproduce GCM clouds using their SCMs.
Cloud feedbacks simulated by the SCMs show two distinct groups of large negative and positive feedbacks. Two models with relatively large negative cloud feedbacks are CAM4 and CSIRO, and two with relatively large positive cloud feedbacks are GFDL and GISS.
[Snip]
Table 1: CGILS Participating Models
Models_______Model Institution
SCM 16
CAM4_________National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), USA
CAM5_________NCAR, USA
CCC__________Canadian Climate Center, Canada
CSIRO________Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization
ECHAM5______Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland
ECHAM6______Max-Planck Institute of Meteorology
ECMWF_______European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting
GFDL_________Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,USA
GISS__________Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA
GSFC_________Goddard Space Flight Center, USA
JMA___________Japanese Meteorological Center, Japan
KNMI__________Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
LMD__________Laboratory of Dynamic Meteorology, France
SNU__________Seoul National University, Korea
UKMO________Met Office, United Kingdom [NIWA NZ]
UWM__________University of Wisconsin at Madison, USA
DALES________Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
SAM__________System for Atmospheric Models-UofW/SBU, USA
UCLA_________University of California at Los Angeles, USA
UCLA/Langley___NASA Langley Research Center, USA
[Participants deleted for brevity – see source document]
Thus we have;
CAM4 and CSIRO (AU) – v – UKMO (NZ) and GISS
and
NASA GSFC – v – NASA GISS
Interesting.
Richard C – do you know what the publication status is of these and whether they’ll be making it into the next IPCC report?
“do you know what the publication status is of these”
They are both GEWEX news articles. The published results will come out of CFMIP (see link up-thread)
“and whether they’ll be making it into the next IPCC report?”
Oh yes (the CFMIP papers – not the news articles). This study is sorting out models with foundations such as AER’s “The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements” from outliers and therefore irrelevant .
This is why we are seeing the desperation from GISS (Lacis paper) because they have an in-house problem let alone a wider GCM peer problem.
I have not worked out though, the answer to the wider question that is: does CO2 forcing distort an RTM module when integrated in a GCM that is otherwise un-distorted when it is stand-alone. Obviously GISS ModelE is but I have not got as far with CAM.
Also, it seems, NIWA has bought a lemon.
They would be better now to employ the CAM atmospheric component of the NCAR CCSM climate model along with an NZ tuned NCEP numerical weather prediction model as used in this study:
“Single-Column Modeling, GCM Parameterizations and Atmospheric Measurement Data”
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ninXeljnOHYJ:www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf15/extended_abs/somerville_rcj.pdf+CAM+Atmosphere+GCM&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjTzKScGmGk_aC9tbN99lRTJCTC2rHxhxYLwEGhwbypC9W8IU9viHKG4qD-eH0ijh59AAJIOHfZ_45YRHeqfzOJ_ibgLueqYO5gMK69kWjTtEyO1FCO9cvEmBpRDRzywfNy0O-5&sig=AHIEtbRVAiyou0XeBAYQmSD5MFuUTxr1yw
It is daft that NZ’s national and regional studies will only come only from UKMO UM. There needs to be at least one comparative simulation package available to NIWA, otherwise they are locked in to a no-win situation as is UK Met Office (barbecue summers).
I have asked around for some educated comments to this thread (and TIS) and hopefully after they’ve come in I will be able to take this to Dr David Wratt, NIWA’s Chief Scientist who I have found to be openly approachable even though he seems to be protecting the consensus.
“They would be better now to employ the CAM atmospheric component of the NCAR CCSM climate model along with an NZ tuned NCEP numerical weather prediction model”
Better still, this model:
The Nested Regional Climate Model
Overview
The Nested Regional Climate Model (NRCM) combines the strengths of NCAR’s Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model and NCAR’s Community Climate System Model (CCSM) into an instrument that will allow for fundamental progress on the understanding and prediction of regional climate variability and change. In particular, embedding WRF within CCSM will allow scientists to resolve processes that occur at the regional scale, as well as the influence of those processes on the large-scale climate, thereby improving the fidelity of climate change simulations and their utility for local and regional planning.
http://www.nrcm.ucar.edu/
Andy.
On reflection the first article is a formal paper that documents the results of the CFMIP-GCSS-CGILS study.
There’s two titles to the article and I missed the second one, also I’ve got a head full of stuff at the moment and these details get lost in the befuddlement.
Minghua Zhang and Christopher Bretherton are at the forefront and there is a companion Zhang 2010 paper that will also stir things up once it is out from behind the paywall:-
“Evaluation of tropical cloud and precipitation statistics of Community Atmosphere Model version 3 using CloudSat and CALIPSO data”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/#comment-26655
That’s CAM3.
The second article is described as an “analysis” so I’m not sure where it fits in.
Interesting that one Kevin E. Trenberth is GEWEX SSG Chair.
He’s the eternal seeker of heat and esteemed co-author of “Climate Change: Tracking Earth’s Energy” Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/328/5976/316?ijkey=HCN3KyFhuaZG.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
Catalogued at WCRP as “Where has the energy from global warming gone?”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcrp/ScienceArchives_index.html
Also in NCAR & UCAR News Center
“Missing” heat may affect future climate change
April 15, 2010
BOULDER—Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”
The authors suggest that last year’s rapid onset of El Niño, the periodic event in which upper ocean waters across much of the tropical Pacific Ocean become significantly warmer, may be one way in which the solar energy has reappeared.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/2013/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change
Except El Nino’s gone, La Nina’s here – poor Kevin cant buy a trick.
Now that Trenberth is GEWEX SSG Chair, perhaps he could set up a Deep Ocean Penetration Experiment (DOPE) to look for the “missing heat”.
GCSS Report
Panel Report to the 2010 GEWEX SSG Meeting
Full Name (Acronym): GEWEX Cloud Systems Study (GCSS)
Reporting period: 2009
The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project :
Summary of Activities and Recommendations
for Advancing Assesments of Cloud Feedbacks
Sandrine Bony, Mark Webb, Bjorn Stevens,
Chris Bretherton, Steve Klein and George Tselioudis
on behalf of the CFMIP coordination committee,
with the endorsement of the GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) panel.
Document prepared for the 12th session of the JSC/CLIVAR
Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) to be held on Sept 22-24 2008
NASA GSFC
Climate and Radiation Research
GSFC is a partner in ARM:
The Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurements Program (ARM) complements NASA’s satellite observations of the Earth. ARM employs sophisticated arrays of surface-based sensors to study shortwave and longwave radiation and cloud physics and dynamics.
ARM — Atmospheric Radiation Measurements
Not to be confused with:
AER — Atmospheric & Environmental Research
Major Support for the Development of AER’s Radiative Transfer Models has been provided by:
* Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA)
* U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric System Research Program (ASR)
* Jet Propulsion Laboratory through the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) program
* U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program(ARM)
* Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, and NASA through the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program.
GSFC implements:-
EARTH SYSTEM MODELING FRAMEWORK (ESMF)
See – Plug-and-play modeling
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming
Written by Lewis Page, The Register | 08 December 2010
A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.
In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don’t account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don’t allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will “down-regulate” and so use water more efficiently.
Bounoua and her colleagues write:
Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.
The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today’s 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.
International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.
“As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change,” says Bounoua’s colleague Forrest Hall, in a NASA statement accompanying the team’s scholarly paper. “Each year we get better and better. It’s important to get these things right.”
The NASA/NOAA boffins’ paper Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required).
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Note that “current climate models” includes NASA GISS.(Hansen, Schmidt et al).
There’s in-house polariity at NASA – GSFC vs GISS
There will only be one winner and it will be the one that mimics observed conditions best.
GISS has such a warm bias that it is now an outlier.
That leaves GSFC – watch the space.
CSIRO Climate Model – Google Search
The CSIRO Mk3.5 Climate Model
Hal Gordon, Siobhan O’Farrell, Mark Collier, Martin Dix,
Leon Rotstayn, Eva Kowalczyk, Tony Hirst and Ian Watterson
CAWCR Technical Report No. 021
May 2010
CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model and Meeting the Strict IPCC AR4 Data Requirements
Improvements in the new Mk3.5 Climate System Model
Collier, M.A., M.R. Dix and A.C. Hirst
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Post 2007
INDEX – CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Climate processes and system modelling
ACCESS – The Australian Community Climate and Earth-System Simulator (AR5)
Enable Australia to contribute appropriate climate projections and scenarios to the Fifth Assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Provide eventually the opportunity for incorporation of socio-economic processes;
New CSIRO Climate Forecast for SE Australia Unbelievable
Jennifer Marohsy, October 23rd, 2010
On Thursday the New South Wales Government officially declared the nine-year drought ended. The very next day the CSIRO released a report warning that the ‘current drought’ appears to be at least partly linked to ‘climate change’.
The CSIRO report entitled ‘Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia’ is an initiative of the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative, SEACI, lead by CSIRO with input from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
The report forecasts a future decline in rainfall and works from the assumption there is already long term decline.
[Snip]
Professor Gareth Paltridge in his book ‘The Climate Caper’ (Connor Court, 2009, pg 21) makes reference to an Australian National University study of the various simulations of rainfall as produced by the IPCC models. The simulations of average Australian rainfall apparently range from less than 200mm per year to greater than 1000mm per year. The actual measured value is 450mm. Considering the forecasts for the late 21st Century, apparently more than half the models predict an increase in rainfall over Australia, and the rest predict a decrease. The most extreme decrease is from the CSIRO IPCC model which suggests that average rainfall over Australia 100 years from now will be 100mm per year less.
[Were the the simulations for ‘Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia’ from CSIRO Mk3.5 or ACCESS?]
[Were the the simulations for ‘Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia’ from CSIRO Mk3.5 or ACCESS?]
Neither initially, they used the results of 15 IPCC GCMs to feed into a hydrological model(?) then moved on to POAMA which is based on ACCESS which in turn is based on UKMO UM/HadGEM3. [oops]
From SEACI:
“A statistical method has been used to relate the output from 15 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global climate models to the local rainfall and potential evaporation, and these local climate variables were then used to drive a hydrological model to estimate the changes in streamflow across the region in the future. There is strong consensus between the climate models indicating a reduction in future winter rainfall across the region”
“Research indicates that there are changes in the Hadley Cell (and hence changes in the STR) associated with global warming. In particular, the STR has intensified with increasing global surface temperature (Figure 5a). This result implies that the rainfall decline in south-eastern Australia may have some link to global warming. To test this, SEACI researchers conducted simulations of the global climate over recent decades using a global climate model. In these simulations the climate was forced by:
natural variations in the output of the sun and in 1. aerosols from volcanoes over the last century
observed changes in anthropogenic sources of 2. global warming (that is, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone)
a combination of natural and 3. anthropogenic processes.
The observed increase in STR intensity was only reproduced in simulations that used anthropogenic forcing. The largest increase occurred when anthropogenic forcing was combined with natural processes, although the size of the changes in the simulations was smaller than the observed changes (Figure 5b).”
Output from the climate models was also used to estimate the rainfall over south-eastern Australia. As with the STR, the best simulation of the observed rainfall decline occurred when both natural and anthropogenic forcing were included, but again the modelled reduction was less than observed.”
“Projections of future climate under enhanced greenhouse gases are made on the basis of output from global climate models. These models, which are similar to the models used each day for routine weather forecasting, include the major physical processes that affect climate. Owing to the large computational requirements for projections many decades ahead, global climate models generally have a spatial resolution of a couple of hundred kilometres, which is too coarse to provide detailed information on local scales.
SEACI researchers have worked on techniques to bridge this gap and have developed a range of techniques to ‘downscale’ the output of global climate models to regional and local scales”
“Types of downscaling
Statistical
Using the historical relationships between the large‑scale outputs from the global climate model and local climate variables (such as temperature or rainfall at a specific site), statistical techniques can be developed to estimate the future state of the local variables in terms of the large-scale model projections. These techniques assume that the global climate models simulate the large-scale flow patterns reasonably well and that these patterns have a controlling influence on the local climate. Statistical downscaling techniques were originally developed to enhance the value of output from routine numerical weather forecasting models, and they have been successfully applied for many decades.
Dynamical
An alternative approach to downscaling is to use the output of a global climate model to drive another, but finer-resolution, numerical model that is focused on the region of interest. Such regional climate models can have a spatial resolution of a few tens of kilometres.”
“Statistical methods for estimating regional climate change
The uncertainty in the results is due primarily to differences and errors in the large-scale atmospheric circulation of the global models. This result highlights the major limitation of all downscaling methods: significant errors in the large‑scale atmospheric circulation from the global models cannot easily be corrected by the downscaling technique. For example, if a global climate model does not simulate the large‑scale circulation associated with synoptic fronts, then the downscaled results cannot produce rain from those fronts.”
“Dynamical modelling of regional climate change
Because it is inherently difficult to get reliable statistics for extreme events, the results of these investigations have considerable uncertainty”
“Assessment of global climate models
Progress is being made in refining the methods to combine the best global climate models for regional climate projections.”
“However, there is considerable uncertainty in the projections (arising mainly from the different sensitivities of different global climate models to greenhouse gases)”
“Dynamical modelling for seasonal forecasting
The practical utility of the POAMA seasonal forecasting model has been increased through improvement in its ability to represent the large-scale processes that drive the climate of south-eastern Australia.
Dynamical climate models for seasonal forecasting were introduced over 20 years ago, and their continuing development is internationally recognised as the long‑term strategy to improve seasonal to inter‑annual forecasting. The coupled atmosphere-ocean-land climate model (POAMA) is run each day by the Bureau of Meteorology to predict global climate out to nine months ahead. The model, jointly developed by the Bureau and CSIRO, has been the basis of research on seasonal forecasting in SEACI.”
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research
A partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology
Plans for POAMA based on ACCESS
Cheap coupled model [oops]
Coupled ocean assimilation
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/custom?q=cache:LoWKKn_8pp0J:www.accessimulator.org.au/file/April2010-Plans-for-POAMA-based-on-ACCESS.pdf+poama&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=google-coop-np
Project Plan for ACCESS
16 September 2005
The Recommendations
Physical parametrisation
(b) A consequence of the strong interaction between parametrisations is that the aim of the team ought to be to develop the best possible parametrisation package, rather than a loose conglomerate of individual parametrisations – the so-called “plug and play” approach. This does not preclude the importance of designing parametrisation schemes in a modular fashion, or the possibility of allowing a limited number of options, which may be useful for development purposes.
http://www.accessimulator.org.au/file/projplan_access20050916.doc
What they have been doing since 2005
Scientific Advisory Group Meeting Minutes
They’ve implemented UKMO UM, HadGEM3 – oops
No superparameterization (CRM) of cloud microphysics – oops
No satellite validated RTM module – oops
What they are doing now, 12 August 2010
http://www.accessimulator.org.au/report/sag.html
• We have successfully moved to UM+UKCA vn7.3 for stratospheric chemistry work and (for the first time!) have successfully performed an N48 L60 meteorology + stratospheric Chemistry run on the NCI VAYU Machine for 1 year. Results are being assessed for science content, but a first-look seems promising for Ozone. This work has been a joint-effort by the MST, CAT and collaborators at Melbourne University and NIWA New Zealand
• Numerous 50 and 100 year simulations have been performed with the ACCESS coupled model (UM + AusCOM) examining the impact of potential improvements in a range of model parameters. Recent simulations display realistic global average temperatures. Main biases include too cold high northern latitudes and excessive Arctic sea ice (especially in North Atlantic), excessive equatorial Pacific ‘cold tongue’ (common model problem), excessive oceanic convection in high-latitude Southern Ocean. Each of these problems is being worked on.
To achieve our research objectives we plan to:
• Invest heavily in ACCESS, and restrict the use of other models to where necessary – oops
Main biases include too cold high northern latitudes and excessive Arctic sea ice (especially in North Atlantic), excessive equatorial Pacific ‘cold tongue’ (common model problem), excessive oceanic convection in high-latitude Southern Ocean. Each of these problems is being worked on.
How do they know it’s a bias? It’s a simulation.
“How do they know it’s a bias?”
They’re comparing the simulations against observed metrics although which ones I don’t know.
It would be good to know which global temperature series for example.
Simulations vs. Observations – Temperatures
Simulations vs. Observations – Precipitation
Anthropogenic Forcing vs. Aerosol Forcing – Model Kludges
Model kludges explained here
Status of Australian modelling relevant to CMIP5 AR5
Centre for Australian Climate and
Weather Research (CAWCR)/CSIRO
5 Oct. 2010
Modelling systems relevant to AR5
CSIRO Mk3.6 AOGCM
– Existing global AOGCM
– CMIP5 long term only
C-CAM Conformal-Cubic Atmospheric Model
– Existing RCM
– CORDEX
ACCESS Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator
– New global AOGCM/ESM
– CMIP5 long term initially
ACCESS coupled model
Aim for AR5 as early as possible 2011
RRTM – A Rapid Radiative Transfer Model (AR4)
RRTMG – Google Search (AR5) Gases
NCAR CAM5 – Google Search (AR5) Atmosphere GCM
NCAR CESM1 – Google Search (AR5) Coupled Climate GCM
Adoption of RRTMG in the NCAR CAM5 and CESM1 Global Climate Models (AR5)
ECHAM5 – Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie (AR4) GCM
ECHAM6 – Google Search (AR5) GCM
Radiation: CAM 4 -> CAM5
Andrew Conley
Spring AMWG, Wed Feb 10, 2010
QUANTIFYING CLOUD RADIATIVE EFFECTS BASED ON CLOUDSAT AND CALIPSO
Mueller Et Al 2010?
Meteorological Institute of the University Bonn
CAM implements:-
EARTH SYSTEM MODELING FRAMEWORK (ESMF)
See – Plug-and-play modeling
See – Notable Improvements
CESM1 Source Code
Browser – Fortran 90
What does this code do?
It is the code for the GCM on this Homepage:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28521
CESM 1.0 incorporates the RRTMG radiative transfer module from AER as reported by Mike Iacono AER here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28361
Mike also reports that it will be an AR5 submission and you can find more about that here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-28380
Given the foundation principles of the RRTMG module and the results it is returning I am using this family of models as a benchmark to assess NIWA’s UKMO UM, GISS ModelE and CSIRO
My plan is to try to answer this question:
Does CO2 forcing distort an RTM module when integrated in a GCM that is otherwise un-distorted when it is stand-alone?
To do this I need to look at the Model Input Data (bottom of page)
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/
Note the warning in red “DO NOT attempt to svn checkout the whole input data repository”
i.e. HUGE file
By following the link “The CESM1.0 User’s Guide explains how to obtain the subset of input data required for your needs.”
We get “CESM1.0 User’s Guide”
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cesm/cesm_doc/book1.html
What I am looking for is the spin-up parameter datasets and is the CO2 dataset the same as that used by ModelE say (the Law Dome-Mauna Loa splice, LD-MD)?. If so, the model will
behave similarly to ModelE irrespective of the RTM module used.
A look at the solar dataset to see if it is the same Judith Lean variant used by all the others will also be instructive.
Clicking on “Downloading input data”
We get this warning – believe it:
“Note: The input data repository contains datasets for many configurations and resolutions and is well over 1 TByte in total size. DO NOT try to download the entire dataset.”
But we can do this:
“Datasets can be downloaded on a case by case basis as needed”
But we need this:
“The username and password for the input data repository will be the same as for the code repository.”
So looks like I will have to register as a user. Continues another day………….
Good luck, let us know how it goes.
So do you actually have any working and compiled code, or is it just output data?
“So do you actually have any working and compiled code,”
No, there’s no point in downloading and running the code (I haven’t got the grunt or a Linux platform that I think it runs on). It’s just a matter of looking at the code via the browser.
“or is it just output data?”
I’m not interested in output data until I’ve got a handle on the Input parameters and physical formulations. Output results from models are dime-a-dozen but the experience of myself and others going down this road is that spin-up datasets and formulations are either extremely difficult or impossible to access. It depends how open the respective organization is. Forget it for UK Met Office for example but GISS is one of the better ones.
This was as far as I got with UKMO input parameters:
Climate model parameters and output files
https://results.cpdn.org/repository/parameters#standard
Parameters
http://climateprediction.net/content/parameters
dtheta might be the UKMO AOGCM equivalent to GISS fixed.tar.gz. which is the prime input parameter database but I have not found access to actually look at the datasets in dtheta
“My plan is to try to answer this question:
Does CO2 forcing distort an RTM module when integrated in a GCM that is otherwise un-distorted when it is stand-alone?”
First, we concentrate on the atmosphere model component of CESM and
that’s the Community Atmosphere Model (now CAM5) – the equivalent of
NIWA’s UM. There’s a pdf that provides essential reading re CAM4 ->
CAM5 also RRTMG v Observations.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Atmosphere/Presentations/2010/conley1.pdf
Second, I’ve searched a bit for the CO2 datasets (spin-up and simulation) but have not found any. My initial conclusion is that they don’t exist and that CESM/CAM employ a fundamentally different methodology to GISS ModelE and most other models in the IPCC stable. That is, they don’t spin-up the model using the Law Dome – Mauna Loa dataset. I don’t even think CESM conforms to the CMIP5 specification by using the RCP Database of CO2 ppm values for 2000 – 2100.
The reason for my (hasty – don’t quote me on it) conclusion can be demonstrated by looking at this pdf “User’s Guide to the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)” – it will be valid for CAM5 near enough.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/usersguide/usersguide.pdf
Search for “CO2” using the pdf search box and you can easily see the treatment of CO2 in the code. So a preliminary answer to the question:-
“Does CO2 forcing distort an RTM module when integrated in a GCM that is otherwise un-distorted when it is stand-alone?”
seems to be – no (in the case of RRTMG and CAM5).
The search brings up the first occurrence of CO2 in “B.8 CAMEXP physics namelist variables” but keep going and you find the prefix “Ramp”. Keep going further and you get to “B.13 Complete list of CAM namelist variables”. Basically GHG’s and CO2 (and other forcings) are either “FIXED” or “RAMPED” by a percentage or factor.
I assume that FIXED enables a natural forcings only simulation.
If I’ve got this right, this is HUGE because this model is not hard-wired for CO2 and can be tuned to mimic the last decades plateaued temperatures where other models, notably Hansen’s ModelE can not. I suspect that CO2 ramping would be minimal to do so.
I will need to ask the right questions to the right people to confirm this but I will really get my head into this before doing so as time permits although there’s plenty of time to do this before AR5.
This could make the CMIP5 results an explosive issue and might even bring down AGW conclusively.
Disappointment
I’ve been able to access the greenhouse gas forcings datasets for CAM 3,4 and 5 via https://svn-ccsm-inputdata.cgd.ucar.edu/trunk/inputdata/ as per Acquiring Input Datasets, CAM5 users guide. Login (if reqd) is username guestuser, password friendly.
Select atm/ cam/ ggas/
Spin-up datasets are:-
# ghg_1800-1999_c050502.nc
# ghg_hist_1765-2005_c091218.nc
# ghg_hist_1850-2005_c090419.nc
# ghg_hist_1850-2005_c090419a.nc
# ghg_hist_1870-2000_c040219.nc
These datasets are the same Law Dome icecore – Mauna Loa splice used by other models in the IPCC stable – very disappointing.
Simulation datasets as specified by the IPCC SRES scenarios are:-
# ghg_ipcc_A1B_1870-2100_c040213.nc
# ghg_ipcc_A1B_1870-2100_c040521.nc
# ghg_ipcc_A1B_1870-2100_c040521.ncdump
# ghg_ipcc_A2_1870-2100_c040213.nc
# ghg_ipcc_B2_1870-2100_c040213.nc
# ghg_ipcc_bau_1870-2100_c040213.nc
# ghg_ipcc_stab_1870-2100_c040213.nc
# ghg_rcp26_1765-2500_c100405.nc
# ghg_rcp45_1765-2500_c100405.nc
# ghg_rcp60_1765-2500_c100901.nc
# ghg_rcp85_1765-2500_c100203.nc
I suspect these are the spin-ups with data (estimates) from the RCP Database appended.
To view these files in Windows requires a utility to present ARM netcdf .nc extension files. A number are available on this page:-
http://science.arm.gov/~cflynn/ARM_Tested_Tools/
So far I have used NCExplorer successfully. The files can be plotted and by clicking on the CO2 plot line, the CO2 concentration in ppm will be returned with a day value. The day value can converted to year by dividing by 365.
Other datasets can be accessed similarly e.g. solar
The physics in the model need to be assessed in the context of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner (G&T) 2009 criticism of IPCC RF methodology. From G&T:
———————————————————————
1.2 The greenhouse e ffect hypothesis
Among climatologists, in particular those who are affliated with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)3, there is a “scientifi c consensus” [22], that the relevant mechanism is the atmospheric greenhouse e ffect, a mechanism heavily relying on the assumption that radiative heat transfer clearly dominates over the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, condensation et cetera [23{30].
In all past IPCC reports and other such scienti c summaries the following point evocated in Ref. [24], p. 5, is central to the discussion:
“One of the most important factors is the greenhouse e ffect; a simplifi ed explanation of which is as follows. Short-wave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded. But long-wave terrestrial radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above. Since, on average, the outgoing long-wave radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both the atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the greenhouse gases : : : The greenhouse e ffect is real; it is a well understood e ffect, based on established scientifi c principles.”
To make things more precise, supposedly, the notion of radiative forcing was introduced by the IPCC and related to the assumption of radiative equilibrium. In Ref. [27], pp. 7-6, one fi nds the statement:
“A change in average net radiation at the top of the troposphere (known as the tropopause), because of a change in either solar or infrared radiation, is de fined for the purpose of this report as a radiative forcing. A radiative forcing perturbs the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Over time climate responds to
the perturbation to re-establish the radiative balance. A positive radiative forcing tends on average to warm the surface; a negative radiative forcing on average tends to cool the surface. As de fined here, the incoming solar radiation is not considered a radiative forcing, but a change in the amount of incoming solar radiation would
be a radiative forcing : : : For example, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to a reduction in outgoing infrared radiation and a positive radiative forcing.”
[Snip]
On the other hand, the macroscopic thermodynamical quantities contain a lot of information and can be measured directly and accurately in the physics lab. It is an interesting point that the thermal conductivity of CO2 is only one half of that of nitrogen or oxygen. In a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere a conventional light bulb shines brighter than in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere due to the lowered thermal conductivity of its environment. But this has nothing
to do with the supposed CO2 greenhouse eff ect which refers to trace gas concentrations.
Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 Deg C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. About 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme eff ect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind
of `superinsulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
——————————————————————–
The treatment of thermal conductivity, convection and condensation can be ascertained from Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 4.0) which is AR5 relevant.
From the description:-
4 Model Physics
4.1 Deep Convection
4.1.1 Updraft Ensemble
4.1.2 Downdraft Ensemble
4.1.3 Closure
4.1.4 Numerical Approximations
4.1.5 Deep Convective Momentum Transports
4.1.6 Deep Convective Tracer Transport
4.2 Shallow/Middle Tropospheric Moist Convection
4.3 Evaporation of convective precipitation
4.4 Conversion to and from dry and wet mixing ratios for trace constituents in the model
4.5 Prognostic Condensate and Precipitation Parameterization
4.5.1 Introductory comments
4.5.2 Description of the macroscale component
4.5.3 Description of the microscale component
4.6 Dry Adiabatic Adjustment
4.7 Parameterization of Cloud Fraction
4.8 Parameterization of Shortwave Radiation
4.8.1 Diurnal cycle
4.8.2 Formulation of shortwave solution
4.8.3 Aerosol properties and optics
4.8.4 Cloud Optical Properties
From this, only conduction has yet to be addressed and is so far not addressed in Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0)
CAM4 physics can be compared to CAM3 by viewing Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)
More CAM evolution can be viewed here.
CESM 1.0 The Community Earth System Model
CESM1 implements:-
EARTH SYSTEM MODELING FRAMEWORK (ESMF)
See – Plug-and-play modeling
See – Notable Improvements
NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0)
User’s Guide – html
User’s Guide – pdf
Search or Browse – Namelist Variables
Scientific Description – Physics Formulations CAM3
Scientific Description – Physics Formulations CAM5
Forum – CESM, CAM, Land, Ocean, Ice
ESG – Gateway for datasets, simulation outputs, software tools
RDA – NCAR’s Research Data Archive
User’s Guide to the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)
Note: this guide is stil a very useful resource and to date is in the best integrated and finalized format – very instructive.
First Light on the Ozone Hockeystick
Posted on May 9, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
After many false starts, thanks to Steven Mosher and Derecho64 I was able to access the forcings used by the CCSM3 climate model. This is an important model because its successor, the CESM3 model, is going to be used in the laughably named “CIM-EARTH Project.” Anyhow, just as new telescopes have “first light” when they are first used, so here I’ll provide the first light from the CCSM3 ozone forcings. These are the forcings used by the CCSM3 model in their hindcast of the 20th Century (called the “20C3M” simulations in the trade). How well did they do with the hindcast? Not all that well … but that’s a future story. This story is about ozone concentrations. Figure 1 shows the concentration at the highest-altitude of the 18 atmospheric levels, concentrations that were used as one of the forcings for the 20C3M climate model runs.
Figure 1. Ozone concentration at about 36 km altitude (23 mi), used as input to the CCSM3 20th century (20C3M) simulations.
There are so many things wrong with using that “data” as an input to a climate model that I scarcely know where to start.
First, the provenance. Is this historical data, some kind of record of observations? Nope. Turns out that this is the output of a separate ozone model. So instead of being observations, it’s like a Hollywood movie that’s “based on a true story”, yeah, right … and even then only for part of the time.
Second, what’s up with the strange sub-annual ups and downs (darker sections) in the annual cycle? They start out in the upper part of the annual swing, and then they change to the lower part after about 1970. Nor is this the only altitude level with this kind of oddity. There are 18 levels, and most of them show this strangeness in different forms. Figure 2 shows their claimed ozone concentrations from about half that altitude:
Figure 2. Ozone concentration at about 19 km altitude (12 mi), used as input to the CCSM3 20th century simulations.
Again you can see the sub-annual cycles, but this time only post-1970. Before that, it goes up and down in a regular annual variation, as we would expect. After that, we see the strange mid-year variation. Most other altitude levels show similar oddities. Again, it appears that the modelers are not applying the famous “eyeball test”.
Third, how on earth can they justify using this kind of manufactured, obviously and ridiculously incorrect “data” as input to a climate model? If you are trying to hindcast the 20th century, using that kind of hockeystick nonsense as input to your climate model is not scientific in any sense, and at least gives the appearance that you are cooking the books to get a desired outcome.
Anyhow, that’s not why I wanted to access the forcings. I wanted to compare them to the output of the model, to see if (like the GISS model) it is functionally equivalent to a trivially simple single-line equation. I’m working on that, these things take time. I just posted this up because it was so bizarre and … well … so hockeystick-like.
More results as they occur,
w.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/09/first-light-on-the-ozone-hockeystick/
Climate ‘scientists’ arbitrarily increase fictitious effects of CO2 by 25% in latest model
Attention alarmists: the latest version of the world’s most widely used climate model arbitrarily increases the fictitious forcing from CO2 ‘back-radiation’ and non-existent positive-feedbacks from clouds by 25%, from a fallacious 3.2C to 4.0C per doubling of CO2.
Journal of Climate 2011 ; e-View doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00197.1
The Evolution of Climate Sensitivity and Climate Feedbacks in the Community Atmosphere Model
A. Gettelman et al
Abstract: We use the major evolution of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) to diagnose climate feedbacks, understand how climate feedbacks change with different physical parameterizations, and identify the processes and regions that determine climate sensitivity. In the evolution of CAM from version 4 to version 5, the water vapor, temperature, surface albedo and lapse rate feedbacks are remarkably stable across changes to the physical parameterization suite. However, the climate sensitivity increases from 3.2K in CAM4 to 4.0K in CAM5. The difference is mostly due to (a) more positive cloud feedbacks and (b) higher CO2 radiative forcing in CAM5. The inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks are largest in the tropical trade cumulus regime and in the mid-latitude storm-tracks. The sub-tropical stratocumulus regions do not contribute strongly to climate feedbacks due to their small area coverage. A “modified Cess” configuration for atmosphere only model experiments is shown to reproduce slab ocean model results. Several parameterizations contribute to changes in tropical cloud feedbacks between CAM4 and CAM5, but the new shallow convection scheme causes the largest mid-latitude feedback differences and the largest change in climate sensitivity. Simulations with higher cloud forcing in the mean state have lower climate sensitivity. This work provides a methodology for further analysis of climate sensitivity across models and a framework for targeted comparisons to observations that can help constrain climate sensitivity to radiative forcing.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/climate-scientists-arbitrarily-increase.html
CCSM/CAM – Timelines for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
Operational Plan AR4 -> AR5 quickview pdf
CCSM3 -> CCSM4 quickview pdf
CAM3 -> CAM4 quickview pdf
CCSM3/CAM3 in AR4 configuration
Temperature – Failed to mimic 2000 -> 2010 plateau (common model problem)
Precipitation – Good agreement with observation 1900 -> 2000
CAM4/CCSM4 Summary for AR5
CAM4 major component changes
a.Convective momentum transports
b.Convective buoyant parcel dilution
c.‘Freeze drying’ of polar low-cloud
d.Finite volume dynamical core
e.Option of HOMME spectral-element dynamical core
Translates to mostly tropical atmosphere climate improvements
*Reduced strong bias in surface stresses (sub-tropical, mid-latitude)
*Improved mean precipitation simulation and local feature
More frequent extreme precipitation events over land
*Stronger modes of tropical variability (esp. MJO)
*Reduced winter-time polar cloud excess
*Improved transport properties (WACCM, CAM-chem)
*More realistic coupled modes of variability
*El Nino period 2->3-5 years
*Realistic global teleconnectionpatterns
20thCentury Climate Change
Short wave cloud forcing over the 20thCentury (1970-1999 minus 1850)
CCSM3 and CCSM4: low-cloud feedbacks are positive (warming)
Amplified signals at 1 deg. compared to 2 deg.
CAM Conclusion AR4 -> AR5
• CAM forecasts allows for diagnosing parameterization errors in
different cloud regimes
• CAM3 (AR4)
– too much precipitation near ITCZ (deep convection scheme: no
mixing between the parcel and its environment)
– PBL too shallow in StCu (dry and surface-driven PBL scheme )
• CAM4-t1 (AR5)
– dramatic improvement of precipitation in the early forecast with
the new convection scheme (entrainment of environment)
• CAM4-t5 (AR5)
– new PBL scheme produces deeper and better mixed PBLs (PBL
scheme: prognostic TKE with explicit entrainment at top of PBL)
Note: PBL is planetary boundary layer, StCu is stratocumulus
An Initial Look At The Hindcasts Of The NCAR CCSM4 Coupled Climate Model
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
[…]
Animation 1
The first thing that’s obviously different is that the frequency and magnitude of El Niño and La Niña events of the individual ensemble members do not come close to matching those observed in the instrument temperature record. Should they? Yes. During a given time period, it is the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events that determines how often and how much heat is released by the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere during El Niño events, how much Downward Shortwave Radiation (visible sunlight) is made available to warm “and recharge” the tropical Pacific during La Niña events, and how much heat is transported poleward in the atmosphere and oceans, some of it for secondary release from the oceans during some La Niña events. If the models do not provide a reasonable facsimile of the strength and frequency of El Niño and La Niña events during given epochs, the modelers have no means of reproducing the true causes of the multiyear/multidecade rises and falls of the surface temperature anomalies. The frequency and magnitude of El Niño and La Niña events contribute to the long-term rises and falls in global surface temperature.
Of even greater concern are the NINO3 Surface Air Temperature linear trends exhibited by the CCSM4 model ensemble members and model mean. As discussed earlier, there has been no rise in eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies from 1900 to present, yet the CCSM4 ensemble members and mean show linear trends that are so high they exceed the rise in measured global surface temperature anomalies. In the real world, cool waters from below the surface of the eastern equatorial Pacific upwell at all times except during El Niño events. It is that feed of cool subsurface water that helps to maintain the relatively flat linear trend there.
>>>>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/an-initial-look-at-the-hindcasts-of-the-ncar-ccsm4-coupled-climate-model/
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION
Year of Tropical Convection (YOTC)
The YOTC Science Plan 2008
A Joint WCRP – WWRP/THORPEX International Initiative
Special Collections in AGU Journals
Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres
INDEX
Simulations of the Atmospheric General Circulation Using a Cloud-Resolving Model as a Superparameterization of Physical Processes
Marat Khairoutdinov, David Randall, and Charlotte DeMott
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
AMS Journals Online, May, 2004
Climate Sensitivity and Cloud Response of a GCM with a Superparameterization
Matthew C. Wyant*, Marat Khairoutdinov+, and Christopher S. Bretherton*
*Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
+Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Revised for Geophysical Research Letters, January, 2006
The indirect effects of aerosols as simulated by the SP-CAM multiscale modeling framework using current versus pre-industrial global aerosol distributions
Marat F. Khairoutdinov, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY; and W. W. Grabowski and H. Morrison
13th Conference on Atmospheric Radiation, July 2010
Optical and Radiative Properties of Clouds
(Joint between the 13th Conference on Atmospheric Radiation and the 13th Conference on Cloud Physics)
Joint Session 2, June 2010
EARTH SYSTEM MODELING FRAMEWORK (ESMF)
Plug-and-play modeling
SCD News: August 3, 2005
ESMF is being developed and deployed by a multiagency collaboration that includes many of the major geophysical modeling and data assimilation efforts in the U.S. The ESMF core implementation team is based in the Scientific Computing Division of NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory
ESMF Production Applications:-
NCAR – CESM1, Community Earth System Model, latest GSM from the following family:
NCAR – CCSM, Community Climate System Model
NCAR – CAM, CCSM’s atmosphere model (the Community Atmosphere Model)
NASA GSFC
NOAA
MIT
Notably absent – NASA GISS
Any climate modeling group not implementing ESMF or its equivalent is dead in the water and will be rapidly left behind and irrelevant.
Dont worry about the NZ temp record for what its worth ..or isnt..:D
Mag reversal coming..increased volcanism..usually precedes the next ice-age.
http://iceagenow.com/Troubling_Global_Volcanic_Activity_on_the_Rise.htm
This is sobering Quentin ( or time to hit the bottle – not sure which).
“Thus, all this volcanic activity occurring around the world may be signaling the advent of a new magnetic reversal and, as bad as volcanoes are, a magnetic reversal is the very definition of a cataclysm on such an order that it defies the imagination. Think of the sudden end of dinosaurs.
I tell you this because of all the blather of biodiversity, predicted species extinctions, and similar nonsense that is now following in the wake of the corpse formerly known as “global warming.” It is the new deception.
The real action is that of the Earth and the Sun. Though a predictable solar cycle, the Sun has gone “quiet” of late with few sunspots, the popular name for gigantic magnetic storms seen on the surface of the Sun. They almost always precede cooling cycles of shorter or longer duration and the worst of these are ice ages.
We are at the end of the latest interglacial period of 11,500 years and the next ice age will come on with blinding speed.
When you tie volcanic activity, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural events together, it behooves the human race to be far more humble about our so-called affect on the Earth’s environment. Our home is a small planet in a very large universe.”
Cloud feedback has a singular purpose, which is to modulate the ratio of cold power emitted by clouds and warm power radiated by the surface such that the radiation leaving the planet is in balance with incoming solar radiation. It’s not the simple positive/negative feedback amplifier network often used to describe climate feedback, moreover; the pedantic representation models a hypothetical feedback network amplifying incremental forcing power into surface temperatures changes and not the actual physical feedback system.
The basic problem is that IPCC centric climate science fails to distinguish between gain and feedback, by assuming unit open loop gain and by lumping everything else as feedback. More correctly, the effects of atmospheric absorption should be considered gain and not feedback., while the amount of clouds is properly considered feedback. Surface temperatures are a consequence of, and inure to the benefit of, establishing equilibrium.
George
Thanks George.
“should be considered’
I agree, but my problem in pursuing this path is that I am constrained by IPCC RF methodology and I have not found a “should be considered’ option except for the RTM’s BEFORE they are integrated into the IPCC centric GCMs.
So I have to take a somewhat pragmatic approach and look at what we have been presented with to date.
“Surface temperatures are a consequence of, and inure to the benefit of, establishing equilibrium.”
This is coming back to bite Hansen and GISS right now (and others).
From George at JoNova:
co2isnotevil:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:16 am
The total influence of the GHG effect is significantly less than 33C. Your -18C number (255K) assumes that clouds and ice are still reflecting power maintaining an artificially high albedo of 0.3, where as the no atmosphere albedo would be the same as the 0.12 measured for the Moon. No GHG effect means no atmosphere, no water vapor and no rain, snow, ice or clouds. Using this value, the no atmosphere surface temperature would be about 270K, or about -3C, making the net GHG effect (all water effects + CO2) only about 18C.
In effect, we can say that the influence of the GHG effect is to both heat and cool. It heats the surface by redirecting a fraction of the power emitted by the surface back to it and cools by increased reflection due to clouds, snow and ice. The cooling can be considered to be the difference between the 255K and 270K, or about 15C.
George
The idea of a homeostatic climatic process continually reorientating climate towards an equilibrium has of course been made famous by Miskolczi. The role of water in this process is at least starting to get some traction. The slightly chicken and egg debate about forcings and feedbacks in respect of water and particularly the climate dominant form of water, clouds, is perhaps best explained by these papers:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C2976%3APBOTES%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
As Spencer et al say: “This indicates that the net (SW + LW) radiative
effect of clouds during the evolution of the composite ISO is
to cool the ocean-atmosphere system during its tropospheric
warm phase, and to warm it during its cool phase.”
That is, clouds are moderators of climate movement in either direction and continually adjust climate towards the eqiuilibrium defined by the water content of the Earth.
Thanks Cohenite, much appreciated.
Both those linked papers are new to me so I ‘ve got some reading to do.
Other than that, this comment and Georges are essential background info for me (believe it or not) when I’m delving in to the RT aspect of the models.
“The role of water in this process is at least starting to get some traction”
Hooray for that. Hopefully it will be the big thing to come out of 2010 and will be hard for AR5 to ignore (but I’m sure they’ll do their best).
I see Judith Curry has some things to say about this in “Water Vapour Mischief” and her Detection and Attribution series, particularly aerosols (Part ll – haven’t read Part lll yet)
“But the real head-spinner in the IPCC’s statement cited above is this sentence: “A net forcing close to zero would imply a very high value of climate sensitivity, and would be very difficult to reconcile with the observed increase in temperature.” In other words, the anthropogenic forcing has to be a net positive, otherwise we can’t explain the temperature increase in terms of external forcing. Which, after all, was determined to be necessary since they have dismissed multi-decadal natural internal variability as a possible explanation for the temperature increase. This is circular reasoning along with the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
Pollution
Transport Pollution
How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world
By Fred Pearce
Last updated at 10:13 PM on 21st November 2009
[Snip]
Emma – dubbed SS Santa by the media – brought Christmas presents to Europe in October and is now en route from Algeciras in Spain to Yantian in southern China, carrying containers full of our waste paper, plastic and electronics for recycling.
But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.
James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.
Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.
In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.
For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.
For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel.
Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’.
Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.
Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.
With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.
Continues………
The surprisingly complex truth about planes and climate change
A new study suggests that planes cause more warming than cars, while ships are cooling enough to counteract them both
Snippet
If we shift to a 20-year time frame, things look completely different. The short-term impacts have largely died down and the plane looks considerably better – helped along by a quirk of atmospheric chemistry which sees nitrous oxide pollution from the aircraft engines causing cooling during this period by destroying methane in the air. The paper even suggests that for any time frame longer than 20 years, flying is typically greener per kilometre than driving (although when I phoned to check this, one of the authors of the report confirmed my suspicion that this isn’t true in Europe, where fuel-efficient cars are more popular).
Of the various forms of transport examined by the researchers, shipping is the other one most markedly affected by short-term climate impacts. Here, however, everything is in reverse because the major short-term effect of shipping is sulfate aerosol pollution. While they remain in the air, these aerosol particles bounce sunlight away from the earth and therefore cause cooling rather than warming. The extent of this effect is amazing: if I’m understanding the numbers correctly, over a five-year time frame the world’s ships cause enough cooling to offset the total warming caused by every car, plane and bus combined.
Even over a 20-year time frame, shipping pollution still contributes an overall cooling effect – as do electric trains, due to the aerosol pollution kicked out from coal-fired power stations. This throws up a tricky issue for policy makers and industry. If we clean up some kinds of air pollution for the benefit of environmental and human health, then we stand to significantly accelerate global warming in the near-term.
Coal-fired Power Plant Pollution
New paper: Coal-fired power plants cause global cooling?!
Posted by Tom Nelson September 09, 2010
The surprisingly complex truth about planes and climate change | Duncan Clark | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Even over a 20-year time frame, shipping pollution still contributes an overall cooling effect – as do electric trains, due to the aerosol pollution kicked out from coal-fired power stations. This throws up a tricky issue for policy makers and industry. If we clean up some kinds of air pollution for the benefit of environmental and human health, then we stand to significantly accelerate global warming in the near-term.
[From the comment section of the above article] | guardian.co.uk
Cactiform seems to have interpreted the logic of this paper perfectly. Having looked at the paper,it does indeed claim that SO2 pollution causes global cooling, and that coal power stations are therefore [are] helping to stop global warming.
Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport – Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications) [Access this link via the Tom Nelson link above]
High SO2 emissions notably from the electricity produced in coal fired power plants lead to a strong cooling from sulfate aerosols.
——————————————————————————————————————–
But SO2 is a killer
SO2 pollution killer – Google Search
Coal Power Plant Scrubbers – Google Search
Flue-gas desulfurization – Wikipedia
Air Quality Scrubbers Help Coal Plants Move Forward – Environmental Leader
Coal-fired power plant, scrubbers could cost $200mn – POWER-GEN …
EPA Says Scrubbers Necessary for Health Protection Under Coal Conversion Plan [EPA press release – July 14, 1977]
The Need for Additional U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants – ASME
Supreme Court to Hear Global Warming Case Against Power Companies
Written by Lee Ross, FoxNews | 06 December 2010
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will give further consideration to a closely-watched lawsuit filed by environmentalists, eight states and New York City blaming the problems associated with global warming on the carbon dioxide output of five major power companies.
An ultimate judgment against the energy providers could lead to dramatic changes in the energy marketplace and ripple into other industries. But the high court’s decision to give the matter closer attention makes that possibility less likely.
In 2009, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs could move forward with their lawsuit alleging the companies were creating a public nuisance by releasing excessive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.
That decision “sets a major precedent in that it gives citizens — in the absence of climate change legislation — the right to take action against big business pollution,” according to a statement released last September by Open Space Institute, one three environmental groups that joined the lawsuit along with New York City and Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
In asking the high court to review the case, lawyers for the power companies said the plaintiffs have no standing to file a lawsuit. Instead, they contend, only the federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to hold power companies accountable for contributing to global warming.
Continues…………
From the Fox News article.
[Snip]
The states claim the power companies have caused irreparable environmental harm by allowing its plants to produce excessive levels of carbon dioxide. They claim people have died because of their actions and others have been directly impacted by the resulting smog, decreased fresh water supplies, land erosion and rising sea levels. Their suit was filed before the 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and the Second Circuit’s 2009 ruling came before the EPA had started to regulate carbon emissions.
[Snip]
In his brief, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said recent actions by the EPA show the feds are now regulating carbon emissions. ”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/06/supreme-court-hear-global-warming-case-power-companies/#ixzz17T09Va8f
Arrests derail chain gang’s power station pollution protest
December 6, 2010 – smh
Sixty-seven people were arrested near one of the nation’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters in the Hunter Valley yesterday.
About 150 protesters spent the weekend near Muswellbrook at ”Climate Camp” to draw attention to Macquarie Generation’s coal-fired Bayswater power station, one of the nation’s largest and the proposed site for a second baseload power plant.
A group of the protesters knocked over a fence yesterday and chained themselves to the power station’s railway track, used to transport coal.
A police spokesman said about 50 officers were sent to manage the protest. The 67 people were charged with a range of offences that related to anti-social or criminal behaviour. On Saturday two other men were arrested after allegedly entering private property and chaining themselves to a coal conveyor.
E Timor counts costs of Chinese power plants
December 15, 2010 – smh
DARWIN: The construction of two second-hand Chinese power plants in East Timor is an escalating environmental and safety disaster that has been hit by delays and cost blow-outs, the project’s supervisors say.
The government in Dili has removed the Beijing-owned Chinese Nuclear Industry 22nd Construction Company from responsibility for building the plants and has hired an Indonesian company to finish the work.
Puri Akraya Engineering Limited was registered with the Hong Kong Companies Register only five weeks before it was secretly given a contract expected to multiply the cost of building the plants from US$91 million to US$353 million.
A confidential report in September by the Italian joint-venture company Electroconsult and Bonifica, which was hired last year to supervise the project, estimates the project will now cost at least $US629 million, almost double the original price.
The report, obtained by the non-government organisation La’o Hamutuk in Dili, revealed a deteriorating quality of work, safety practices that were ”far below regulations” and acts of ”environmental negligence” at the plant sites.
The report listed 14 serious ”issues of concern” and eight more ”problems/issues” but said the supervisor’s recommendations to the Chinese company were rarely implemented.
Although being removed from responsibility for the plants at Hera and Betano, the Chinese company is still believed to be responsible for building high-voltage transmission lines and other parts of the project.
The government in Dili has been criticised for buying the 20-year-old plants from China, which commits the gas-rich country to three decades of importing expensive heavy oil and using outdated technology that is banned in many countries.
Environmental groups say the plants will create acid rain, water pollution, toxic solid waste, particulate air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
While government leaders claimed the project would provide 20,000 jobs for Timorese, the Chinese company had hired only 155 Timorese workers by May this year.
Dili residents say that hundreds of Chinese workers brought to Timor to work in electricity and other projects have caused social tensions among impoverished Timorese, particularly in Dili, where Chinese have fought local gangs on the city’s streets.
The supervisors’ report said the Chinese company had not prepared a single monthly environmental report, although it has been required to do so since January this year.
The report said the Chinese company had no formal process for complaints, had not replanted cleared areas, had no solid waste management plan, had not established buffer zones between residential and project areas and had not complied with requirements for silt containment, oil and grease traps, sanitation facilities or waste treatment. And the company was working below the level required to finish the plants by December next year.
Most routes for the transmission lines had not been surveyed and land disputes were causing problems.
In a website posting, La’o Hamutuk said it was distressed that its predictions about the project were being fulfilled while Timorese became increasingly frustrated about power shortages and public officials concealed the extent of the problem.
Activated Carbon
Applications
Mercury scrubbing
Activated carbon, often impregnated with iodine or sulfur, is widely used to trap mercury emissions from coal-fired power stations, medical incinerators, and from natural gas at the wellhead. This carbon is a specialty product costing more than US$4.00 per kg. However, it is often not recycled.
——————————————————————————————————————–
World-first green technology has vast market potential
Wednesday, 8 December 2010, 10:38 am
Press Release: Carbonscape
MEDIA RELEASE
December 8, 2010
Carbonscape Cracks One-Step Production of Activated Carbon From Waste
World-first green technology has vast market potential
BLENHEIM, NEW ZEALAND: New Zealand charcoal technology company Carbonscape™ has become the first in the world to pioneer a new green technology – a one-step process to cheaply produce highly porous charcoal.
Known as Activated Carbon (often described as AC), this form of charcoal has a huge surface area, typically measuring more than 500 square metres per gram.
This large surface area gives AC a diverse range of uses, including cleaning contaminated soil and water, and capturing significant amounts of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations.
Throughout the world AC is used in such diverse industries as metallurgy, chemistry, agriculture, timber processing, gold extraction, nuclear energy, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, medicine and food processing.
Continues……..
Electricity generation: NZ and selected OECD countries
Parliamentary support, Research papers
7 December 2004
[Snip]
Background
For year ended March 2004 an estimated 40,006GWh of electricity was generated in New Zealand, which was derived from the following sources:1
Hydro 61.6 percent (approximately three-quarters generated in the South Island)
Gas 21.5 percent
Coal 7.1 percent
Geothermal 6.3 percent
Others 3.5 percent (biogas, industrial waste, wood & wind, including cogeneration)
[Snip – see Figure 1.]
In addition, some energy commentators believe that coal will also play a greater role as a generation fuel.8
[Snip]
Gas
Around 41% of New Zealand’s available gas is used for electricity generation, including cogeneration.
[Snip]
Coal
Coal resources occur widely in New Zealand. Total in ground coal resources are estimated at approximately 15 billion tonnes, of this 8.6 billion tonnes is judged to be economically recoverable. About 90 percent (by weight) of the economically recoverable coal is located in the South Island. Of the economically recoverable resources, about one third is in existing mines, while the remainder could be mined without significant investigatory work.16
As a generation fuel, coal provides five percent of New Zealand’s electricity supply needs. This compares to coal providing 37 percent of worldwide electricity generation and as much as 86 percent of electricity generated in Australia.17
State owned coal mining company Solid Energy, who produce over three quarters of New Zealand’s total production, contend that new coal-based electricity generation:
“could maintain the wholesale electricity price near current rates (approximately 6c per kWh) for years to come. A carbon tax of $15 per tonne is likely to increase the cost of all electricity in New Zealand by about 1.5c per kWh.” 18
The Government has specified that the carbon tax will be no more that $25 per tonne and will be introduced after 2007 (the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period is from 2008-2012). Carbon emission trading proponents refer to the global energy sector as “carbon constrained” and that a price on carbon is being gradually and irreversibly embedded in the global economy. Minister Hodgson has acknowledged:
“We may well see new coal fired electricity generation built in New Zealand in the next decade. A carbon tax will not prevent that happening. It will simply ensure that the price we pay for that electricity will be a little more reflective of the environmental cost of choosing that source of energy.” 19
New Zealand industries using coal are working on increasing the efficiency of coal firing to produce electricity, and to reduce the emission of particulates. Genesis Power and Solid Energy have formed a task force to enhance the performance of coal firing at Huntly Power Station (Huntly is a dual fuel power station and can run on gas or coal) and to introduce the next generation of coal technology to the station. Solid Energy is seeking similar arrangements with other major industrial customers, including BHP New Zealand Steel and the dairy industry.20
Solid Energy mines over 3 million tonnes of coal each year. Over half of this annual production is exported to major international customers. This earns $150 million a year for New Zealand in export earnings. Solid Energy exports to Japan, South Africa, China, India, Chile, Australia, the United States and Northern Europe. Supporters of coal powered generation have observed that modern emissions scrubbing technology can make coal no more polluting than gas fired plants,21 and that purpose built power stations in New Zealand would be able to make use of this technology more effectively, and produce lower greenhouse gas emissions, than countries where New Zealand might otherwise export coal.22
[Snip]
Possible Future Plant Changes
Information on possible future power plant developments (10MW or greater), obtained from the Ministry of Economic Development’s Energy Data File, are summarised in table 1 below.27
Table 1. Future power plant developments (10 MW or greater)
Overall, the Ministry reports that 843MW of new generation capacity will come on stream over the next 4 years.
In addition, Solid Energy reports that it is finalising plans for a coal fired plant north of Westport and has not ruled out building a second plant at Rapahoe, also on the West Coast of the South Island, with a combined generation capacity of around 400MW. Solid Energy is planning to lodge resource consents for the building and operation of these plants in 2005. Genesis Power is also undertaking a feasibility study on the recommissioning an old coal fired plant at Meremere in the Waikato, with a projected generation capacity of 500MW.28
[Snip].
Mighty River Power has begun a public consultation process as a precursor to seeking resource consents to operate the Marsden Point B power station using coal as a fuel source. The station was originally built to run on oil, but was mothballed in 1978 without generating any electricity. Mighty River Power is proposing to refit the plant at Ruakaka, Northland, into a station capable of generating up to 320MW.
[Snip]
Governance
[Snip]
The audit suggests that, despite New Zealand’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the most likely sources of new generation are thermal, especially coal.
[Snip]
From “The carbon detectives” – NZH
United States success in reducing acid rain shows how tracking what comes out of a factory – as well as what goes in – can pay off. The EPA began requiring companies to continuously measure the sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides coming from their smokestacks in 1995. They reported as often as every hour in the world’s first large-scale emissions-trading effort. By 2006 the US had cut sulphur dioxide emissions by 40 per cent and nitrogen oxides by almost 50 per cent, a 2007 EPA assessment found.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-changing-world/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502962&objectid=10694702
The rest of the article is about CO2 emissions measurement and trading i.e. a money-go-round
Air Pollution SO2 – Google Search
Note this
ANCILLARY BENEFITS OF GHG MITIGATION IN EUROPE: SO2, NOX, PM10
{PM10 – Particulate Matter)
Why don’t they could forget GHG mitigation and focus on real pollution? Unnecessary GHG mitigation represents an opportunity cost for real pollution mitigation efforts
Development Pollution
India’s ‘Dr No’ battles for eco-friendliness
5:30 AM Saturday Dec 18, 2010 – NZH
India’s Environment Minister has blocked the construction of mines, power plants and dams. He’s held up a new airport and describes diesel cars as criminal. He’s even taken Harry Potter to task for promoting threatened owls as pets.
Continues…….
Just 18 months into the job, Jairam Ramesh has turned a once-marginal Environment Ministry into a powerful gatekeeper on India’s road to prosperity.
He’s been called an eco-crusader, a “Dr No” of development and even a buffoon, angering so many investors and politicians that there are constant rumours of his impending dismissal. But his tenacity has fuelled an environmental debate that many say is long overdue.
After two decades of unbridled development, India risks becoming a victim of its own success. It is now the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter, with rivers the World Bank has described as fetid sewers and cities among the world’s most polluted.
“Many people in India, particularly the elitist classes, still think ‘grow now, clean later’. We cannot repeat the mistakes of other countries,” Ramesh said.
“I’m no eco-evangelist, but are we serious about implementing our environmental laws or not?”
The US-educated technocrat-turned-politician insists his job, adversarial by nature, is to help correct India’s development course by enforcing long-ignored environmental laws.
Environment Pollution
Green taxes: a brief overview
Parliamentary support, Research papers
Andrew Morrison
Economist, Parliamentary Library
February 1996
Executive Summary
• Green taxes are one of a variety of policy measures designed to control activities which affect the environment.
• They consist of charges on pollution or on whatever causes the pollution, paid for by producers and/or consumers.
• These charges act as an incentive on producers and consumers to reduce their dependence on the taxed item.
• Other environmental policy measures include regulatory instruments, suasive instruments and economic instruments besides green taxes.
• These policy measures can be evaluated in terms of their environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, equity and acceptability.
• Most economists believe that green taxes and other economic instruments generally achieve environmental objectives more cost-effectively than regulatory instruments.
• However, exceptions exist, and detailed study is required to determine the optimal policy for any specific environmental problem.
• Furthermore, empirical evidence is inconclusive. This is the result of limited data and the fact that most green taxes are secondary parts of wider regulatory structures and have charges set too low to have any marked effects on incentives.
• Green taxes and other economic instruments have been the subject of considerable political and analytical interest over the last few years, and work is being produced which should be of more practical use to policy-makers.
“Our over-consumption is alleged to cause global warming. We are guilty because we are prosperous, so we supposedly owe reparations to the poor nations.”
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=556625&p=1
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that “we need to fundamentally transform the global economy, based on low-carbon, clean-energy resources.”
Yeah right – this man is evil personified.
The good news is that the UN has got off-side with some Green factions (not all) after the Cancun “process” extension.