Archive for the ‘global warming’ Category

h1

Rahmstorf (2011): Robust or Just Busted (Part 6): Holgate’s sea level data

November 11, 2012

This is part 6 of a multi-part series about “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections,” Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011. You can see an index of all parts here. I frequently refer to this paper as R2011.

Recall figure 1 from R2011[1]…

Figure 1 from "Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections" (Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011)

One of the primary points of this graphic is the quadratic fit of one data set (CW06) overlaid on all the other data sets.  The message that you are to receive is that these various sets of sea level data all tell the same essential story.  The falseness of this claim was discussed in “Quadratic fits of laughter.”

But let’s take Rahmstorf at his word.  Let’s agree with him that these sea level data sets all tell essentially the same story.  R2011’s big point is that the Rahmstorf model is “robust” given a variety of different historical data sources.  So it seems a tad bit strange that after going to all the trouble to point out these various sea level data sources and their similarities, he only gives the projection results of his model for three of them (CW06[2], CW11[3], and JE08[4]).

Of those three input sea level data sets, only two of them give similar sea level projections for the 21st century.  The outlier which results from CW11 shows significantly lower sea level projections.  Because of this, the outlier must be rejected (according to R2011), even though Church and White, the authors of both CW06 and CW11, clearly think the CW11 data is an improvement over their Cw06 data.

What about some of the other sea level rise data sets shown in R2011’s figure 1?  What type of 21st century sea level projections do they yield when inserted into Rahmstorf’s model?

Holgate’s sea level data

Let’s consider the sea level rise data of Simon Holgate.    The above image shows Holgate’s 2004 data[5], labeled HW04.  As I have previously pointed out, R2011 oddly includes Holgate’s 2004 data but ignores his 2007 data[6], H07.  I will consider both.  In my previous post I showed the results of Rahmstorf’s model when either CW06 and CW11 are input with six different combinations of reservoir storage and ground water depletion inputs.  The following two graphs show the results in the same format using HW04 and H07 (instead of CWo6 and CW11) with the same combination of reservoir storage and ground water depletion inputs.  I have kept the horizontal axis scaling the same as in the previous post to highlight the different results when Church and White data is used and when Holgate data is used.  Data files with all the specifics of this data are at the bottom of the post.

FIGURE 2. Sea level rise projections for the 21st century based on my implementation of Rahmstorf’s model under the RCP45 emissions scenario (Moss, 2010)[7] for Holgate sea level data coupled with various combinations of reservoir storage and groundwater depletion data inputs.
FIGURE 3. Sea level rise projections for the 21st century based on my implementation of Rahmstorf’s model under the RCP85 emissions scenario (Moss, 2010)[7] for Holgate sea level data coupled with various combinations of reservoir storage and groundwater depletion data inputs.

For comparison, here are the previously posted results using Church and White sea level data…

 RCP45

 RCP85

Hmmm…

Didn’t R2011 imply that those various sea level data sets shown if figure 1, above, told the same essential story?  Yes, I believe he did!  That is why they overlaid the same quadratic fit onto all of them.

And didn’t R2011 say that their model was “robust?”  Yes, I am quite certain that they did!  In fact the word “robust” was in the title of their paper, and they said…

“We determine the parameters of the semiempirical link between global temperature and global sea level in a wide variety of ways…We then compare projections of all these different model versions (over 30) for a moderate global warming scenario for the period 2000–2100. We find the projections are robust

and

“we will systematically explore how robust semi-empirical sea level projections are with respect  to the choice of data sets”

So, they claim to use “a wide variety of ways” to look at “all these different model versions (over 30).”  They show plots of seven different sea level data sets and imply their similarity.  But they only show projections based on three of them.  Then they reject the projections based on one of the three, even though it is arguably the best sea level data of the bunch.

What do they say about their model’s projections based on the “wide variety” other sea level data sets that look so good overlaid with the same quadratic fit…?

Cricket. Cricket.

How would R2011 reject the projections based on the Holgate data?

How would R2011 reject the projections based on the Holgate data that I have shown above in figures 2 and 3?  Well they would undoubtedly point out that the fit parameter, To (the so called baseline temperature, is way too low.  Recall, R2011 finds To to be on the order of -0.4 °C (below the 1950 to 1980 global average).  When Holgate’s sea level data is used, To is on the order of -4.0 °C.  Hey Rahmstorf, don’t blame me, its your model!

Maybe one of these days I will write a justification for a large negative To.  It is really quite simple.  But I am going to conclude for today.

Which of the many projections do I endorse?

Which projections are better – the ones based on CW06, CW11, JE08, HW04, or H07?  None of them.  As I have pointed out over and over, the Rahmstorf model is bogus, bogus, bogus.  I have now shown, again, that it is also not robust.  It is only marginally better than a random number generator.  HIgher temperatures would likely lead to higher sea levels, but Rahmstorf’s model is useless in determining how much.

Data files with specifics of of my implementation of Rahmstorf’s model using Holgate sea level data

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: none
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121110-165152.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121110-165152.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121110-165152.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121110-165152.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010 extrapolated to 1880
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-132349.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-132349.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-132349.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-132349.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-132148.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-132148.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-132148.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-132148.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Chao 2oo8
Ground water depletion: Wada 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121105-230616.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121105-230616.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121105-230616.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121105-230616.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated back to 1900
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated back to 1900
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-133403.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-133403.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-133403.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-133403.png

Sea level data: Holgate and Woodworth 2004
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-132906.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-132906.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-132906.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-132906.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: none
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-133753.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-133753.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-133753.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-133753.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010 extrapolated to 1880
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-135519.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-135519.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-135519.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-135519.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: Wada 2010
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-134334.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-134334.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-1209121029-134334.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-134334.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Chao 2008
Ground water depletion: Wada 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-135834.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-135834.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-135834.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-135834.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated to 1900
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012 extrapolated to 1900
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-175833.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-175833.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-175833.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-175833.png

Sea level data: Holgate 2007
Reservoir storage: Pokhrel 2012
Ground water depletion: Pokhrel 2012
Result files…
Summary: vr-summary-121029-140159.doc
Inputs: vr-input-image-121029-140159.png
Fit: vr-fit-image-121029-140159.png
Projections: vr-projections-image-121029-140159.png

_________________________________

_________________________________

[1]  Rahmstorf, S., et. al., “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections” Climate Dynamics, 2011

[2] Church, J. A., and N. J. White, “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise“,  Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 2006

[3] Church, J. A. and N.J. White, “Sea-level rise from the late 19th to  the early 21st Century“, Surveys in Geophysics, 2011

[4] Jevrejeva, S., et. al. “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? ,”  Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 2008

[5] Holgate, S. J. and Woodworth, P.L., “Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 2004

[6] Holgate, S.J., “On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 2007

[7] Moss, et. al., “The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment,” Nature, 463, 2010

h1

Library of data for testing “robustness” of Rahmstorf models

September 5, 2012

This is part 3.5 of a multi-part series about “Testing the robustness of semi-empirical sea level projections,” Rahmstorf, et. al., Climate Dynamics, 2011. You can see an index of all parts here. I frequently refer to this paper as R2011.

I have finally published my small library of temperature, sea-level and sea-level modifier (reservoir storage, groundwater depletion, etc.)  data from various sources.

All of these data files have a consistent format which can be read by my code that calculates fit parameters for the Rahmstorf model relating sea level to temperature.  However, not all of the time series are long enough to be useful in that model.

You can see the data files here.

I am open to suggestions for additions to this list.  If you have any criticisms of the files, such as accuracy of the data, format, selection, anything – please leave a comment.  I will give due attention to any legitimate criticism that is aimed at improving the data.

Coming soon…

I am a slow worker, but I try to be thorough.

The first output from my code, using Rahmstorf’s preferred inputs (GISS temperature, Church and White 2006 sea level data, and the Chao reservoir correction) will be presented soon.  The goal of that presentation will be two-fold: to verify that of my model implementation are consistent with Rahmstorfs; to have a simple format for presenting those result.  That format can then be applied to the results of other input data.

h1

Profound insight from the National Research Council

June 25, 2012

The National Research Council has released a hard-hitting report about global sea level, and in particular, sea level along the western coast of the United States.  Yup, they really nailed it down.  They predict the sea level along California’s coast to rise somewhere between 4 and 30 cm (between 1.5 and 12 inches) between 2000 and 2030 (see page 5).

Their report is hundreds of pages long because they are very smart people.  But if you want to save some time, you can get an idea of what is really happening by looking at the following three images.  Click on each image to put it in animation mode in its own window.  There is one animation for each of the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington state. 

Be sure to notice the sea level rise rate centered above each graph.  Keep in mind that a 30 cm sea level rise in 30 years requires an average of 10 mm per year.

Click on image to start animation in new window

California sea level data.  Click image to start animation in a new window.

Click image to start animation in new window.

Washington sea level data. Click image to start animation in new window.

Click image to start animation in a new window.

Washington sea level data. Click image to start animation in a new window.

We are already 12 years into the 30 from 2000 to 2030.  As you can see from the above animated plots, there appears to have been a distinct lack of acceleration in the last 100 years or so.  Roughly speaking, the sea level along the coast of California is rising at about 2 mm/year.  So it looks like there will be  a net rise surpassing the National Research Council’s lower limit of 4 cm in 30 years.  On the other hand, it would require an extraordinary, nearly impossible acceleration to get to 15 cm, just half the NRC’s upper estimate of 30 cm, by 2030.  But you can still pray to Gaia for a miracle.

A sure sign of poor scholarship

Here is a little hint for my obvious betters at the NRC: When you rely on the models of Stefan Rahmstorf to make your sea level rise predictions, one of two things will have happened by 2030.  If you are lucky your report will have been forgotten.  If you are unlucky people will simply be laughing at you.

Well, I suppose you can hope for that big earthquake that your report says (page 7) could cause the sea level to rise by an additional meter.  You’d have it made if you could blame atmospheric CO2 for earthquakes.  Your elite thinkers should start working on that paper now.

h1

Rahmstorf: Is it OK to call him an “alarmist” now?

May 9, 2012

Some folks never give up.  In the following video Stefan Rahmstorf says…

To me a tipping point in the climate system is like a sweet spot in the climate system, where a small perturbation can have a major, even qualitative effect.  It’s like a small change in temperature moving, for example, the Greenland Ice sheet beyond the point where eventually it will melt down all together…from about 2 degrees global warming there would be a risk of the complete meltdown of the Greenland Ice sheet…I think this two degree limit agreed in Cancun by the politicians may not be enough to prevent a dangerous interference in the climate system.

Now let’s be clear about this: a “complete meltdown” of the Greenland ice sheet would raise the planet’s sea level 7 meters (7000 mm).  The sea level rise rate today is about 3 mm per year and decreasing according to satellite data.  A rational reading the tide gauge data is even less.

I guess in Greenland ice must melt at -25°C.  Here is today’s temperature outlook…

Oh, I know, the scientifically sophomoric sophisticated will tell us all about the rapidly accelerating glaciers.  Well, their favorite journal, Science, throws a little icy cold water on their dreams of catastrophic nirvana.  In 21st-Century Evolution of Greenland Outlet Glacier Velocities ( T. Moon, et. al., Science, 4 May 2012, Vol. 336, pp. 576-578)  Moon et. al. produced “a decade-long (2000 to 2010) record documenting the ongoing velocity evolution of nearly all (200+) of Greenland’s major outlet glaciers.”  They found that in some regions there was a glacier acceleration (SEE! SEE!), but not very consistently over the last 10 years.  Here is their conclusion

Our observations have implications for recent work on sea level rise. Earlier research (33) used a kinematic approach to estimate upper bounds of 0.8 to 2.0 m for 21st-century sea level rise. In Greenland, this work assumed ice-sheet–wide doubling of glacier speeds (low-end scenario) or an order of magnitude increase in speeds (high-end scenario) from 2000 to 2010. Our wide sampling of actual 2000 to 2010 changes shows that glacier acceleration across the ice sheet remains far below these estimates, suggesting that sea level rise associated with Greenland glacier dynamics remains well below the low-end scenario (9.3 cm by 2100) at present. Continued acceleration, however,may cause sea level rise to approach the low-end limit by this century’s end. Our sampling of a large population of glaciers, many of which have sustained considerable thinning and retreat, suggests little potential for the type of widespread extreme (i.e., order of magnitude) acceleration represented in the high-end scenario (46.7 cm by 2100). Our result is consistent with findings from recent numerical flow models (34).

So, Rahmstorf is worried about a “complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet” which would lead to 7 meters (7000 mm) of sea level rise, but the data shows “sea level rise associated with Greenland glacier dynamics remains well below the low-end scenario (9.3 cm by 2100)” (93 mm by 2100).  Does being off by a factor of 75 (7000/93) qualify as “alarmist?”

By the way, when Moon says “Earlier research (33) used a kinematic approach to estimate upper bounds of 0.8 to 2.0 m for 21st-century sea level rise” he is talking about Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st Century Sea-Level Rise (Pfeffer, et. al., Science, 5 September 2008, Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 – 1343).  I discussed this paper at length two years ago in my “Reply to John Mashey.” (Still feeling smug, John?) 

And finally,  Moon’s last sentence says “Our result is consistent with findings from recent numerical flow models (34).”  He is talking about Committed sea-level rise for the next century from Greenland ice sheet dynamics during the past decade (Price, et. al., PNAS, 31 May 2011, vol. 108 no. 22 pp. 8978-8983).    Price, et. al. say

The modeling conducted here and some reasonable assumptions can be used to make approximate upper-bound estimates for future SLR from GIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] dynamics, without accounting for future dynamical changes explicitly. As discussed above, numerous observations indicate that the trigger for the majority of dynamic thinning in Greenland during the last decade was episodic in nature, as the result of incursions of relatively warm ocean waters. By assuming that similar perturbations occur at regular intervals over the next century and that the ice sheet responds in a similar manner, we can repeatedly combine (sum) the cumulative SLR [sea level rise] curve from Fig. 4B to arrive at additional estimates for SLR by 2100. For example, if perturbations like those during the last decade recur every 50, 20, or 10 y during the next 100 y, we estimate a cumulative SLR from GIS dynamics by 2100 of approximately 10, 25, and 45 mm, respectively…Addition of the estimated 40 mm of SLR from changes in SMB [surface mass balance] by 2100 would result in a total SLR from Greenland of 85 mm by 2100.

Holy cow! Rahmstorf is telling us to be worried about 7000 mm of sea level rise due to the “complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet,” but Price et. al. say maybe 85 mm due to Greenland by 2100.

h1

Pop Quiz!

February 11, 2012

Have you seen the video on my previous post?  Here is a pop quiz (and opinion poll) to see if you were paying attention.   You can review the video (or see it for the first time) here.


h1

Modern Luddites

December 31, 2011

A friend of yours

Suppose a friend of yours believes that the world is facing a dire future because of too much CO2 in the atmosphere.  The problem seems clear to him, he says, and so does the best course of action.  The fossil fuel powering of the world must come to an end.

He knows that bringing that end about is very difficult, but he perseveres.  It will be very expensive.   Many of the worlds assets will be consumed replacing a thriving fossil fuel based economy with a new “cleaner” economy.

The entire world must be convinced to cooperate, so he cajoles and he scolds.  The standard of living of the wealthy nations must be reduced.  The rest who are embracing the benefits of an energy rich society for the first time will have to wait.

Huge administrative changes will be needed, so he manuevers for control.  Great swathes of the planets landscape will have to be altered to accommodate some combination of wind power, solar power and biofuel production.

But he also has faith that the hardships of his solution will be offset by other (perhaps vague) benefits beyond the reduction of CO2.

A new idea

Now suppose along comes somebody who has another idea to solve the problem: an idea that might not result in a huge disruption of the economy. It’s an idea that might not result in all the hardships.  It is only an idea, in its infancy.  He would like your friend to take a look at it.

What does your friend say?  Does he say “Let’s see this new idea, look at the pros and cons.  Let’s run some simple tests.”  Or does he say “Go away!” and stick his fingers in his ears and say “NANANANANA – I can’t hear you – NANANANANA.”

Would you doubt your friends sincerity, or even his sanity, if he chose the latter response?

Suppose the idea was this…

The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) study, which considers the possibility spraying sulphur particles into the stratosphere, like a volcano, to force global cooling.  This is a big idea and it would be no simple feat to accomplish. What are the advantages and disadvantages?  Who knows?

The stratosphere is 20 km above the surface of the Earth.  The amount of material that would be required is enormous.  The idea is that huge balloons would pull hoses up into the stratosphere and particulate material would be pumped up from the ground.   

It is worth at least thinking about.  A small-scale project to test of the concept was planned in the UK for this fall.  A balloon would hoist a hose only one kilometer and water would be pumped into the atmosphere. 

Image is from "Good governance for geoengineering," Nature, 479, November 2011

Modern Luddites

Alas, this experiment may never take place because a lot of people like your friend may have killed it.  In effect, they said “Go away!” and stuck their fingers in their ears and chanted “NANANANANA – I can’t hear you – NANANANANA.”

According to Nature  (the journal where every environmentalist is a saint),

“the EPSRC [UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council], one of the study’s main funders… received a letter and open petition, also sent to UK energy and climate-change secretary Chris Huhne and signed by more than 50 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil-society organizations, demanding that the project be cancelled.”

The source of the letter and petition?  An organization called “Hands Off Mother Earth.”  The 75 or so signatory organizations to the petition include the following organizations: Amigos da Terra Brasil, Earthpeoples, Gaia Foundation, and my favorite, the Gender Climate Caucus.

Their letter states…

We believe the experiment planned to test equipment for injecting particles into the stratosphere with the aim of counteracting global warming through solar radiation management (SRM) should be cancelled…We believe that such research is a dangerous distraction from the real need: immediate and deep emissions cuts.

In other words, they do not want a simple test of an alternative idea.  I believe that makes them anti-science and anti-reason, modern luddites.

h1

Rahmstorf (2009): Off the mark again (part 13), 21st century projections with gamma = 1

December 16, 2011

Recall the six IPCC families of temperature scenarios, summed up in the following IPCC figure.  VR2009 applied these temperature scenarios to their model to yield corresponding sea level rise rates.  Let’s consider the A1F1 and A1T temperature scenarios.

Figure 1. (top) This is figure 10.26 from the IPCC AR4 Chapter 10, "Global Climate Projections." It shows the temperature projections for each of the six IPCC SRES emission scenarios averaged for the 19 AOGCM models and 3 carbon cycle feed backs and the standard deviations. (bottom) Zoom in on A1F1 and A1t averages.

Here are the resulting VR2009 sea-level rise rates for the A1T and A1F1 scenarios…

Figure 2. Resulting sea level rise rates when the VR2009 model is applied to the A1T and A1F1 temperature scenarios.

Figure 2. Resulting sea level rise rates when the VR2009 model is applied to the A1T and A1F1 temperature scenarios.

Nothing really surprising so far. The sea level rise rates look more or less like the temperatures. 

Now consider some the following hypothetical 21st century scenarios.  Note that they can’t be considered “extreme” when compared the 21st century temperature scenarios already used by VR2009.

Figure 3. The same IPCC temperature scenarios, A1T and A1F1, as in figure 1 and three hypothetical temperature scenarios from Moriarty.

Here are the resulting sea level rise rates…

Figure 4. The sea level rise rates due to the A1T and A1F1 temperature scenarios and three the hypothetical temperature scenarios from Moriarty.

Where are the sea level rise rates for Moriarty’s hypothetical temperature scenarios?  They are perfectly hidden below the sea A1T sea level rise rate.  How can that be?  Because they were designed to be that way to make a point.  See the math here and let γ=1 in equation (VIII) and you will get the idea.  This is not some mistake in my math, but rather a direct consequence of the VR2009 and one more illustration of the bizarre consequences of their model.