What is robust in a climate projection and how can I tell?

• Since every wiggle is not necessarily significant, modellers need to assess how robust particular model results are. They do this by seeing whether the same result is seen in other simulations, with other models, whether it makes physical sense and whether there is some evidence of similar things in the observational or paleo record. If that result is seen in multiple models and multiple simulations, it is likely to be a robust consequence of the underlying assumptions, or in other words, it probably isn’t due to any of the relatively arbitrary choices that mark the differences between different models. If the magnitude of the effect makes theoretical sense independent of these kinds of model, then that adds to it’s credibility, and if in fact this effect matches what is seen in observations, then that adds more. Robust results are therefore those that quantitatively match in all three domains. Examples are the warming of planet as a function of increasing greenhouse gases, or the change in water vapour with temperature. All models show basically the same behaviour that is in line with basic theory and observations. Examples of non-robust results are the changes in El Niño as a result of climate forcings, or the impact on hurricanes. In both of these cases, models produce very disparate results, the theory is not yet fully developed and observations are ambiguous.

Clear as mud? They actually do a pretty good job of explaining what those pesky modellers are up to and why we should listen to them. I hope you will give it a read.

The views from level 8 were lovely. At almost twice the height, they will be magnificent. I wonder if I can talk some one into giving me a window seat?

I understand that over 700 people will be shifting over the weekend, with the new Ministers taking over the Beehive, the new opposition taking their offices and a massive shuffle across Bowen House.

I will personally inspect Winston’s fridge for anything chilled he may have left behind.

I laughed out loud at this image over at Tumeke this morning, in a post from Bomber. I’m not entirely sure who gets the image credit, but perhaps it is best ascribed to John Key himself, as quoted in the NZ Herald:

Do [New Zealanders] want to put in a National government with a fresh view that will work going in one direction with a small group of parties, or do they want a potentially five-headed monster?

[Frog: It turns out it was Tane over at the Standard who deserves credit for the awesome image!]

As rule-maker & whistle-blower, one of the first questions facing the new Minister of Fisheries – Phil Heatley - is how many sea-lions can be killed this season?

Since 2003, a more information rich but highly complex model has been used to set the quota. It is like a minefield trying to get your head around the facts and figures Last year, based on advice from  MFish senior managers, the Minister made a controversial decision that greatly favoured the fishing industry – not the sustainability of NZ sea-lions. This was despite opposition from  the MFish science and policy teams as well as the Department of Conservation.

With this in mind, I ask how does one make an allowable kill quota on New Zealand sea lions whilst maintaining the ‘sustainable New Zealand’ brand?  Should the Minister support an allowable kill quota and if so, how many is acceptable? Or should they be saying no to the fishing industry – for the sake of the New Zealand Inc brand and the recovery of our depleted sea lion population?

Congratulations to F&B for widening their voice into the blogosphere. We need more credible voices asking pertinent questions about the destruction of our natural heritage. Green supporters should give it a look in and comment on the offerings.

So how about it Phil? Will you overturn Labour’s stupid adjustment of the quota, or make it worse still?

The sceptics love to bash on about how water vapour is the real greenhouse culprit, how climate scientists ignore it and waste their time on CO2. This is a typical straw man for the sceptics who won’t engage with the real science. The facts are that the climate scientists have always been aware of the importance of water vapour in global energy retention and have sought to model how our rapid increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases effect it. Well, a new paper has been published that answers many of these questions.

An article at scienceblog describes the findings:

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.

“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

“This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”

No one ever asserted that the climate models used by the IPCC were anything more than crude approximations of a complex system. But they are amongst the best that human science can muster. Increasing support for the validity of key aspects of the models means that the next generation of model will be even more robust. This means the risks associated with rapid, human induced climate change can be better assessed and our responses refined. Those still demanding irrefutable proof of man’s fingerprint on climactic change will be waiting a long, long time. I for one will continue to monitor and take the advice of the best that modern science has to offer. Bjchip - did you say that you worked on the AIRS project? Perhaps you have a deeper insight.

The beer market and the alcohol market have been very resilient. We’re not complacent about that but it is a positive trend. We’re in a market that often has said when things get tough people still enjoy a drink and they still enjoy going to the cinema. So there are a couple of things that people don’t tend to give up. And we’re I guess reasonably lucky that alcohol’s one of those things.

I guess the positive trend he is talking about is the record 470.3 million litres of alcohol consumed by New Zealanders last year. Cheers to a company that ’s aiming for double digit growth for the foreseeable future.

There is more relevant Christmas themed Captain Capitalism here.

“New Zealand is at serious risk of becoming an international Pariah over climate, and jeopardising its international standing and trade relations. The last thing we want is to become the equivalent of the French Government during nuclear testing in the Pacific.”

Yeap, it seems after years of carping about the importance of relations with the United States, Act’s climate denial stance and demands for a select committee to investigate whether the earth really does revolve around the sun will be moving us in exactly the opposite direction to closer friendship with the United States.

This warning follows a speech by American President-Elect, Barack Obama, to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Global Climate Summit to which Obama pledges sweeping action to combat climate change but notes that the United States cannot meet the challenge alone:

Now’s the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high…

Anyone that is willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States.

So, Rodney Hide, How about it?  Can you put aside the denialism, if not for science at least so we can stay cuddling up to that country with all the big shiny nuclear weapons?

The British Government Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published in March, was blunt.

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming; climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.”

The review warned that “our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes”.

And these are the cautious, official pronouncements. Many scientists are much more apocalyptic. Alongside this overwhelming consensus, Mr Hide’s flippant naysaying was easy to laugh off when he was a gang of one. But for Mr Key to now give these views credibility risks making New Zealand a laughing stock as well.

National campaigned on reviewing the way New Zealand meets our Kyoto treaty obligations to reduce our carbon footprint. That’s fine. Act’s global warming denial policy was not part of the deal. Mr Key should spell this out pronto.

I would have said though that scientists are currently apoplectic rather than apocalyptic.  Climate change is a relatively easy thing to combat, if only we want to. We have already developed all the technological solutions we need. We just need to start using them. But first we need some greater responsibility shown by Hide.  If he is a scientist, as he claims, he should understand what a scientific consensus is and what it means.

The capture of the [Sirius Star supertanker] is one of the most spectacular strikes in maritime history.

“It looks like a deliberate two fingers from some very bright Somalis. Anyone who describes them as a bunch of camel herders needs to think again,” one Somalia analyst said.

Well, obviously they weren’t camel herders – camels can’t swim quite that far out to sea. Anyway, keep your eyes open for any petrol being sold at below the market rate. You may be receiving stolen goods, fallen off the back of a camel.

Photo credit: red betty black