All models are wrong, but some are downright deceptive.
- Jul 18, 2019 11:58 pm GMT
- 4716 views
Geographic information systems (GIS) are designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present spatial or geographic data.
Unfortunately, as the British statistician, George Box pointed out, "All models are wrong". An aphorism that has been expanded in common usage to mean "All models are wrong, but some are useful", and applies to scientific modeling in general.
And then there is the reality presented by the Nobel laureate Frank Sherwood Rowland, “What is the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true.”
And then there is the obscene practice of manipulating data to suit an agenda, as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been doing for the past 31 years, as exposed by David Wasdell of the Apollo-Gaia Project in his 2014 presentation, ‘Beyond the Summit’ Sensitivity, Target Temperature and the Carbon Budget.
This submission draws heavily from the Wasdell presentation, which although five years old is all the more poignant since the problem of global warming has done nothing but fester and grow in the interim.
Fig. 1 is from IPCC’s fifth assessment reports published in 2013/14 relating to the cumulative effect of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the implications for temperature rise. The bottom scale shows the cumulative CO2 emissions from 1870 onward in gigatons of carbon (GtC) and to the left is the temperature anomaly relative to the period 1861-1880 in degrees Celsius. The top scale tracks gigatons of CO2, which is 3.67 times heavier than carbon. The Representative Carbon Pathways (RCPs) are plotted according to the various GHG concentrations.
The visual, produced for the Summary for Policymakers, is the basis on which the available carbon budget is determined and is probably the most significant and most influential strategic piece of visual information ever produced by the IPCC but according to Wasdell is misleading and is unfit for policymaking.
The ratio of global temperature and cumulative carbon is only approximately constant. It is an interplay of several compensating carbon cycle and climate feedback processes that operate on different time scales, depend on modeled sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks that are uncertain. Thus, emissions for a given temperature target are uncertain.
Nowhere in the Summary for Policymakers is the dependence on climate sensitivity noted. In fact, it is taken out of the equation so, the conclusion in the basic scientific text is 'allowed emissions for a given temperature target are uncertain'.
Most models show the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and temperature as a fairly straight line, but almost no models consider the possibility that long-term feedbacks will change the picture.
Fig. 2 changes the upper scale of Fig. 1 from GtCO2 to parts per million (ppm) and draws a straight blue line (the “Charney” sensitivity) from 0 through the dotted blue lines indicating 560 ppm, which would be a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level and its intersection with 3 degrees Celsius. In 1979 the National Academy of Sciences, chaired by Jule Charney, estimated climate sensitivity at 3 °C with a tolerance of 1.5 °C and this range has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since.
Fig. 3 demonstrates that there are other influences besides CO2 emissions associated with climate change.
Hadley Sensitivity is the relationship between Hadley Circulation Asymmetry and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Models.
Hansen Sensitivity adds ice-sheet albedo feedbacks, and
Earth System Sensitivity includes all feedback dynamics based on historical data that show the way the earth has responded to changes in temperature in step with changes in carbon dioxide concentrations over millions of years.
These feedbacks successively compress the quantity of CO2 necessary to produce a given temperature as the slope of the feedback’s rise.
Fig. 4 starts to explore the detailed relationship between sensitivity and total carbon budget for a given target temperature starting with 2oC. The solid horizontal bars show the available carbon budget in blue and in red for carbon overshoots. Note that virtually every politician and most policymakers claim there is a carbon budget to play with without going over 2 degrees, beyond which most climate scientists acknowledge “catastrophe” lays. Considering the other sensitivities, however, we are all already well into the red. For a target of 1.5oC, the goal of many at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris shown in Fig. 5, there is no climate budget and the overshoots range of between 31 and 394GtC.
Fig. 6 shows the overshoots for a 1oC target, where we’re at today, and Fig. 7 overlays the three targets and shows that instead of having a supposed carbon budget of 200GtC we have a carbon overshoot of 464Gtc.
And if that wasn’t enough, the grey bar shown in Fig. 8 represents the non-CO2 GHGs and the dark purple band in Fig. 9 represent the latent but unfulfilled promises of the international community concerning climate change.
Fig. 10 is the business as usual scenario, and Fig. 11 demonstrates a projected equilibrium temperature of 5.3°C, even with current GHG levels because the effects of the non-CO2 GHGs are currently mostly completely masked by the “global dimming” effects of atmospheric particulates that will end with the termination of fossil burning.
As Wasdell says, “emissions reduction on its own cannot deliver the goods. We must have a two pronged-strategy of stopping all further emissions and reducing the atmospheric stock, drawing down from the atmosphere much that is already in place. Only that kind of dual strategy, within a time span that is appropriate for the earth systems behavior, will enable us to achieve the agreed objective of avoiding dangerous climate change.”
All of which will no doubt be a massive downer for Geographical Information System proponents.
We just need to stop standing around waiting for our nightmares to come true, which almost assuredly will happen if we rely on the garbage we are being fed by the IPCC.
As James Hansen has warned us, “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”