Warming Caused by Soot, Not CO2

From the Resilient Earth

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Wed, 07/15/2009 – 13:19

A new paper in Science reports that a careful study of satellite data show the assumed cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere to be significantly less than previously estimated. Unfortunately, the assumed greater cooling has been used in climate models for years. In such models, the global-mean warming is determined by the balance of the radiative forcings—warming by greenhouse gases balanced against cooling by aerosols. Since a greater cooling effect has been used in climate models, the result has been to credit CO₂ with a larger warming effect than it really has.

This question is of great importance to climate modelers because they have to be able to simulate the effect of GHG warming in order to accurately predict future climate change. The amount of temperature increase set into a climate model for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ is called the model’s sensitivity. As Dr. David Evans explained in a recent paper: “Yes, every emitted molecule of carbon dioxide (CO₂) causes some warming—but the crucial question is how much warming do the CO₂ emissions cause? If atmospheric CO₂ levels doubled, would the temperature rise by 0.1°, 1.0°, or by 10.0° C?”

Temperature sensitivity scenarios from IPCC AR4.

The absorption frequencies of CO₂ are already saturated, meaning that the atmosphere already captures close to 100% of the radiation at those frequencies. Consequently, as the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases, the rise in temperature for a given increase in CO₂ becomes smaller. This sorely limits the amount of warming further increases in CO₂ can engender. Because CO₂ on its own cannot account for the observed temperature rise in the past century, climate modelers assume that linkages exist between CO₂ and other climate influences, mainly water vapor (for a more detailed explanation of what determines the Global Warming Potential of a gas see my comment “It’s not that simple”).

To compensate for the missing “forcing,” models are tuned to include a certain amount of extra warming linked to carbon dioxide levels—extra warming that comes from unestablished feedback mechanisms who’s existence is simply assumed. Aerosol cooling and climate sensitivity in the models must balance each other in order to match historical conditions. Since the climate warmed slightly last century the amount of warming must have exceeded the amount of cooling. As Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist and former NASA scientist, puts it: “They program climate models so that they are sensitive enough to produce the warming in the last 50 years with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. They then point to this as ‘proof’ that the CO₂ caused the warming, but this is simply reasoning in a circle.”

A large aerosol cooling, therefore, implies a correspondingly large climate sensitivity. Conversely, reduced aerosol cooling implies lower GHG warming, which in turn implies lower model sensitivity. The upshot of this is that sensitivity values used in models for the past quarter of a century have been set too high. Using elevated sensitivity settings has significant implications for model predictions of future global temperature increases. The low-end value of model sensitivity used by the IPCC is 2°C. Using this value results, naturally, in the lowest predictions for future temperature increases. According to the paper “Consistency Between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect” published in Science on july 10, 2009, Gunnar Myhre states that previous values for aerosol cooling are too high—by as much as 40 percent—implying the IPCC’s model sensitivity settings are too high also. Here is the abstract of the paper:

In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, the direct aerosol effect is reported to have a radiative forcing estimate of –0.5 Watt per square meter (W m^–2), offsetting the warming from CO2 by almost one-third. The uncertainty, however, ranges from –0.9 to –0.1 W m^–2, which is largely due to differences between estimates from global aerosol models and observation-based estimates, with the latter tending to have stronger (more negative) radiative forcing. This study demonstrates consistency between a global aerosol model and adjustment to an observation-based method, producing a global and annual mean radiative forcing that is weaker than –0.5 W m^–2, with a best estimate of –0.3 W m^–2. The physical explanation for the earlier discrepancy is that the relative increase in anthropogenic black carbon (absorbing aerosols) is much larger than the overall increase in the anthropogenic abundance of aerosols.

The complex influence of atmospheric aerosols on the climate system and the influence of humans on aerosols are among the key uncertainties in the understanding recent climate change. Rated as one of the most significant yet poorly understood forcings by the IPCC there has been much activity in aerosol research recently (see Airborne Bacteria Discredit Climate Modeling Dogma and African Dust Heats Up Atlantic Tropics). Some particles absorb sunlight, contributing to climate warming, while others reflect sunlight, leading to cooling. The main anthropogenic aerosols that cause cooling are sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon, whereas black carbon absorbs solar radiation. The global mean effect of human caused aerosols (in other words, pollution) is a cooling, but the relative contributions of the different types of aerosols determine the magnitude of this cooling. Readjusting that balance is what Myhre’s paper is all about.

Smoke from a forest fire. Photo EUMETSAT.

Discrepancies between recent satellite observations and the values needed to make climate models work right have vexed modelers. “A reliable quantification of the aerosol radiative forcing is essential to understand climate change,” states Johannes Quaas of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. Writing in the same issue of Science Dr. Quaas continued, “however, a large part of the discrepancy has remained unexplained.” With a systematic set of sensitivity studies, Myhre explains most of the remainder of the discrepancy. His paper shows that with a consistent data set of anthropogenic aerosol distributions and properties, the data-based and model-based approaches converge.

Myhre argues that since preindustrial times, soot particle concentrations have increased much more than other aerosols. Unlike many other aerosols, which scatter sunlight, soot strongly absorbs solar radiation. At the top of the atmosphere, where the Earth’s energy balance is determined, scattering has a cooling effect, whereas absorption has a warming effect. If soot increases more than scattering aerosols, the overall aerosol cooling effect is smaller than it would be otherwise. According to Dr. Myhre’s work, the correct cooling value is some 40% less than that previously accepted by the IPCC.

Not that climate modelers are unaware of the problems with their creations. Numerous papers have been published that detail problems predicting ice cover, precipitation and temperature correctly. This is due to inadequate modeling of the ENSO, aerosols and the bane of climate modelers, cloud cover. Apologists for climate modeling will claim that the models are still correct, just not as accurate or as detailed as they might be. Can a model that is only partially correct be trusted? Quoting again from Roy Spencer’s recent blog post:

It is also important to understand that even if a climate model handled 95% of the processes in the climate system perfectly, this does not mean the model will be 95% accurate in its predictions. All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error.

Can such a seemingly simple mistake in a single model parameter really lead to invalid results? Consider the graph below, a representation of the predictions made by James Hansen to the US Congress in 1988, plotted against how the climate actually behaved. Pretty much what one would expect if the sensitivity of the model was set too high, yet we are still supposed to believe in the model’s results. No wonder even the IPCC doesn’t call their model results predictions, preferring the more nebulous term “scenarios.”

Now that we know the models used by climate scientists were all tuned incorrectly what does this imply for the warnings of impending ecological disaster? What impact does this discovery have on the predictions of melting icecaps, rising ocean levels, increased storm activity and soaring global temperatures? Quite simply they got it wrong, at least in as much as those predictions were based on model results. To again quote from David Evans’ paper:

None of the climate models in 2001 predicted that temperatures would not rise from 2001 to 2009—they were all wrong. All of the models wrongly predict a huge dominating tropical hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern—no such hotspot has been observed, and if it was there we would easily have detected it.

Once again we see the shaky ground that climate models are built on. Once again a new paper in a peer reviewed journal has brought to light significant flaws in the ways models are configured—forced to match known historical results even when erroneous values are used for fundamental parameters. I have said many times that, with enough tweaking, a model can be made to fit any set of reference data—but such bogus validation does not mean the model will accurately predict the future. When will climate science realize that its reputation has been left in tatters by these false prophets made of computer code?

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

==================================

ADDENDUM BY ANTHONY

I’d like to add this graph showing CO2’s temperature response to supplement the one Doug Hoffman cites from IPCC AR4. here we see that we are indeed pretty close to saturation of the response.

click for larger image

The “blue fuzz” represents measured global CO2 increases in our modern times.

From the “pictures actually do matter” department…NSIDC’s Mark Serreze is thrilled to get them

Recently declassified high-resolution satellite photos, such as this one from the Canadian Fram Strait, could provide scientists with more detailed information about Arctic sea ice melting.

from Science News

Hundreds of high-resolution satellite photos of the Arctic sea ice taken during the past 10 years should be immediately declassified and released to the scientific research community, the National Research Council reported on July 15. Shortly after, the United States Geological Survey made about a thousand of the images available to the public through the Global Fiducials Library.

“Most people from the scientific community are not aware that these images have been collected,” says Stephanie Pfirman, chair of the NRC committee that wrote the report. “They’ll be very excited to see these results.”

The photos could help scientists study the rapid changes taking place in the Arctic, the committee members say. Current research efforts that might benefit include studies of polar bear habitats, of the movement of ice floes and of the formation and evolution of melt ponds — bodies of water that form on ice sheets and accelerate their melting.

“There are a lot of processes that we still don’t have a good handle on,” such as why Arctic ice is melting faster than models predict it should, says geographer Mark Serreze of the University of Colorado at Boulder. High-resolution satellite imagery is “just the sort of thing we need” to answer these questions, he says.

The satellite project began in the mid-1990s when environmental scientists teamed up with members of the intelligence community to create a program that would see whether “classified assets”, which might include aircraft or satellites, could collect data useful for scientific purposes. Called Medea, the program approved the use of pre-existing satellites to take pictures beginning in 1999 at one-meter resolution of four Arctic sites. Two additional locations were added in 2005. The only catch was that the photographs could not be released until a committee had determined that they were scientifically useful.

h/t to Ric Werme

Guest post by John Goetz

As noted in the previous post, GISS has released their monthly global temperature summary for June, 2009. This month’s whopping anomaly of 0.63C is once again much higher than that of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is trending in the opposite direction.

Temperature data from 1079 stations worldwide contributed to the analysis, 134 of them being located in the 50 US states. Data from essentially the same few stations have been used for the past twenty-four months. Many, many hundreds of stations that have historically been included in the record and still collect data today continue to be ignored by GISS in global temperature calculations.

Once again, the bulk of temperatures comprising the present-day worldwide GISS average come from airports – in this case 554 airports, according to the NOAA metadata from the V2 station inventory. In the US, the ratio of airports to total stations continues to run very high, with 121 out of the 134 reporting stations being located at airports.

Why worry about airports? Aside from recent posts on this site documenting problems with airport ASOS equipment in the US, WUWT has also documented a number of equipment siting problems, notably the typical close proximity of the equipment to a tarmac heat sink. Airports can introduce a mini-UHI effect where one would otherwise not be found.

The NOAA metadata is not entirely accurate, and several stations located at airports are not noted as such. Some examples include Londrina and Brasilia in Brazil, Ely / Yelland in Nevada, and Broome in Austrailia. Those stations were easy to find because they had “airport” (or some variant) in the station name. A check of coordinates using Google Earth confirmed the airport locations.

Let’s examine the metadata a little further, shall we?

NOAA says that 345 of the stations it passes on to GISS are rural and presumably free of UHI influence. Fifteen of those stations are located in the US. However, only 201 of those rural stations are not located at an airport, and therefore presumably free of UHI effects (including tarmac heat sinks). In the US, only one of the fifteen stations is listed as both rural, and not located at an airport: Ely / Yelland in Nevada.

Doh!!! As noted above, that station is located at an airport – confirmed not just by Google Earth, but also by NOAA’s NCDC website as well! This means that all of the US temperatures – including those for Alaska and Hawaii – were collected from either an airport (the bulk of the data) or an urban location.

As for the rest of the world, some of the stations listed as being rural and not at an airport have metadata indicating they are located in an area of “dim” or “bright” lights. Filtering those out, we find a total of 128 stations that are rural, not at an airport, and “dark”.

Why are “dark” stations important? Recall that GISS uses dark stations to adjust for UHI in the urban stations. With only 128 dark stations available, none being in the US, it would seem this is an impossible task.

Fortunately, GISS adjustment rules allow old data to be used in adjusting new data. The older “non-reporting” rural weather stations continue to adjust reporting urban stations, even though the most recent two years of overlap is missing.

Thankfully, the algorithms are robust enough to calculate adjustments to the 100th of a degree even when data is missing.

NASA GISS has released their global temperature anomaly data for June 2009 and it is quite the surprise.

In both the UAH and RSS satellite data sets, global temperature anomaly went down in June. GISS went up, and is now the largest June anomaly since 1998, when we had the super El Nino.

Data source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Here are the June global temperature anomaly comparisons:

GISS .63C

RSS .075

UAH .001

The divergence between the satellite derived global temperature anomalies of UAH and RSS and the GISS land-ocean anomaly is the largest in recent memory.

But that isn’t the only oddity. Over on Lucia’s blog, the first commenter out of the gate, “Nylo” noticed something odd:

Nylo (Comment#16257) July 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Regarding updates in past temperatures, this is not the most important change. Very noticeable is the fact that now 2007 is the second hottest year, having replaced 1998 in the statistics. This has been achieved by lowering the 1998 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.56 , and raising the 2007 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.57. Last month they were viceversa.

It is curious to me that such adjustments in GISS seem to occur in a way that enhances the present trend. Perhaps it is like a fine liqueur, aged to perfection.

Rice University/Photos.com

No one knows exactly how much Earth’s climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists’ best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth’s ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius — about 13 degrees Fahrenheit — in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

“You go along a core and everything’s the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different,” Dickens said. “This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world.”

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That’s significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today’s climate models include accepted values for the climate’s sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”

Source: Rice University

Left to Right: Dr. Gavin Schmidt (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), Dr. Paul Knappenberger (President of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum), Dr. Wally Broecker (Columbia University), and Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (University of Chicago) pose for a photo after the first of the Global Climate Change forum. Forum I was held at the Adler Planetarium.

From Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog.

Two Decades of No Warming, Consistent With . . .

Over at Real Climate they are busy giving climate skeptics reason to cheer:

We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

Imagine, twenty-two or more years (1998 to ~2020) of no new global temperature record. What would that do to the debate?

Real Climate does say something very smart in the piece (emphasis added):

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

As I’ve argued many times, uncertainty is a far batter reason for justifying action than overhyped claims to certainty, or worse, claims that any possible behavior of the climate system is somehow “consistent with” expectations. Policy makers and the public can handle uncertainty, its the nonsense they have trouble with.

From ICECAP

AMO, The Key Global Climate Indicator By Matt Vooro

The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years. [per NOAA].

The AMO index is calculated at NOAAPSD by using the Kaplan SST data set [5x5], determining the area weighted average over the North Atlantic over 0-70N and then detrending this data. The average AMO index or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index went negative or cool in January 2009 The average for the first 5 months this year is about [-0.06] . It has been cooling since 2003. In the past, the very cold seasons of North America and especially the East coast happened when the annual average AMO went cool [ as low as -0.405] in the 1970’s.

It seems that this level of cool AMO may be several years off as the AMO cooling rate appears to be still slow. Back in 1964 it took about 8 years before the AMO went to [-0.3] by 1971. Review of other periods for similar rates of decline of the AMO show a spread of about 2-8 years. However the solar activity was much higher during 1964-1972 and things may cool down faster currently with extended solar minimum and anticipated low future solar cycles. If AMO does drop faster, then the cold weather like 1964-1979 may be the norm here much sooner and the East Coast will cool down as well as will the globe. The most sustained number of low AMO levels was during the cold spell of 1902 -1925 and again the 1970’s.

The graph below shows how closely Annual Global Air Temperature Anomalies [Crutem3] follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index [AMO] below.

The last interval change was 1994 or about 15 years ago and according to Enfeld et.al (2005), the probability that AMO will switch to cool in 15 years is about 80%. Based on this analysis , there is a high probability that the current cooling phase of AMO which started in 2009 is real and likely sustainable for the next 20 years at least.

The graph below shows the decline of the AMO index from warm to cool between 2005 and 2009 below.

EL NINO 2009-2010

There has been an El Nino within about 12 months after each of the last four solar minimums. The same pattern seems to be developing again now. The El Nino may be a moderate or weak and short lived [about a year]. It may have a minor effect on global temperatures, like in the period 1965-1966 when US temperatures continued to drop despite the El Nino.

AMO appears to be like a thermostat or predictor of global temperatures. ENSO events if moderate or strong seem to modify, amplify or over-ride the AMO effects. This pattern will continue to bring cool yearly temperatures and colder and snowy winters like 2008 and 2009. My best guess is that the climate of the 1960’and 1970’s will be our climate for the next several decades [2-3] at least, and inter-dispersed with periodic warm years. PDO and AMO readings are of limited value for short term use but quite useful and accurate for decadal forecasts. Currently 2009 looks something like 1971 [cool PDO, low cool/ near neutral AMO] and the rest of this decade looks like the 1970’s if you had pick one decade from the past. The 1960’s and the 1950 are also close behind.

This latest period of cooler weather is not the start of some modern ice age or new grand cold minimum but just another cool cycle of the planet that happens about after every 20-30 years more recently when AMO and PDO are both in the cool mode simultaneously. The coldest last such cycle 1902-1925 when AMO hit a single month low of -0.563 and PDO went down to -1.72 and global air temperature anomalies plummeted to -0.581C [crutem3] in 1911. Other such cool periods occurred 1964-1976 and also much earlier during the Dalton and Maunder Minimums. Read more here.

from The Washington Post

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End

By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

Animations of Weekly SST Anomaly Maps from January 3, 1996 to July 1, 2009

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

The following four animations of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies were created using the mapping feature (Full Version) of the NOAA NOMADS system for the weekly OI.v2 SST data:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&ptype=map&dir=

The “Contour interval for var1” was set at 0.2 deg C to bring out the lower-intensity temperature anomalies. “white” was set at “0” so that blues represented negative anomalies and reds represented positive anomalies. All four videos last for approximately 2 1/2 minutes.

Please click on the videos to watch them in a larger size at YouTube. There they can be expanded to full screen and set to high definition.

ATLANTIC OCEAN

The North Atlantic has the highest SST anomaly linear trend of all of the ocean subsets. Refer to my post Putting The Short-Term Trend Of North Atlantic SST Anomalies Into Perspective. And of the three major ocean subsets, the Atlantic Ocean has the highest OHC linear trend. This is illustrated in my post Levitus et al (2009) Ocean Heat Content – Comparison of The Ocean Basin Data. Does the Atlantic SST Anomaly Animation help show the reasons?

In addition to the surges of heat in the North and South Atlantic during El Nino events, there are a number of paths that warm SST anomalies enter the South Atlantic during ENSO neutral and La Nina periods. Occasionally, the Benguela Current carries these warm water anomalies north along the Southwest Coast of Africa, where they are then carried west by the Atlantic Equatorial Currents. The warm anomalies either return to the South Atlantic, following the currents of the South Atlantic gyre, or they enter the North Atlantic. Once in the North Atlantic, they travel north, and appear to do that quickly. These additions of elevated SST anomalies during La Nina and ENSO-neutral periods also help explain why There Are Also El Nino-Induced Step Changes In The North Atlantic.

Atlantic Ocean SST Anomaly Animation 1996 to 2009

INDIAN OCEAN

The Indian Ocean animation shows very “noisy” SST anomalies, without any obvious reoccurring pattern. I was hoping to illustrate evidence of the Indian Ocean Dipole. In a future post, I’ll try to do so.

Indian Ocean SST Anomaly Animation 1996 to 2009

PACIFIC OCEAN

ENSO events stand out in the Pacific Ocean SST anomaly animation. It is possible to differentiate between traditional El Nino events like the 1997/98 El Nino (initially forms in the eastern equatorial Pacific) and the El Nino Modoki events of 2002/03 and 2004/05 (initially form in the central equatorial Pacific). Occasionally, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) pattern in the North Pacific (north of 20N) makes its presence known, as does the basin-wide pattern of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).

In a future post, I’ll discuss a sequence of events that appears to occur during traditional El Nino events. Note how, before the formation of the 1997/98 El Nino, the Humboldt Current carries warm Southern Hemisphere SST anomalies up along the west coast of South America to the eastern equatorial Pacific. Yet RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots (refer to RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots…) clearly show that the majority of the heat from the 1997/98 El Nino was transported to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Does this mean that El Nino events transport heat from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere?

Pacific Ocean SST Anomaly Animation 1996 to 2009

GLOBAL

In addition to the processes that appear in the videos of the three major oceans and the interactions between them, the Global SST anomaly animation also shows the seasonal shifts in the SST anomalies within the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. There also appears to be a shift between them, where the higher SST anomalies appear during the summer months for each hemisphere.

Note also that the Indian Ocean anomalies no longer seem so noisy.

Global SST Anomaly Animation 1996 to 2009

Click image for ABC News video report.

Here are the details from the NYC National Weather Service Office:

000
NOUS41 KOKX 012057
PNSOKX

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
455 PM EDT WED JUL 1 2009

...UNUSUALLY WET AND COOL JUNE FOR CENTRAL PARK...

FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE...HERE ARE THE TOP TEN COOLEST AND WETTEST
JUNES ON RECORD SINCE 1869 FOR CENTRAL PARK NY:

    COOLEST                     WETTEST
AVG. TEMP. YEAR         INCHES PRECIP.  YEAR
  64.2     1903             10.27       2003
  65.2     1881             10.06       2009
  65.7     1916              9.78       1903
  66.8     1926/1902         9.30       1972
  67.2     1958              8.79       1989
  67.3     1927              8.55       2006
  67.4     1928              7.76       1887
  67.5     2009/1897         7.58       1975
  67.7     1878              7.13       1938
  67.8     1924              7.05       1871

DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...HERE ARE SOME
INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:

THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR THE 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD. THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...WHICH ALSO
OCCURRED IN 1897.

THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
WAS 67.2 DEGREES.

BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OCCURRED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE...OR 75 PERCENT OF THE MONTH.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 90 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1996.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 85 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1916. THIS HAS ONLY OCCURRED
2 OTHER TIMES...1903 AND 1886.

THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
APRIL. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 IN APRIL...BUT NOT IN
JUNE WAS BACK IN 1990.

THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
MAY. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN MAY...BUT NOT IN JUNE
WAS BACK IN 1903. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN
APRIL...BUT NOT IN JUNE WAS ALSO BACK IN 1903.

THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE REACHED IN CENTRAL PARK IN THE MONTH OF JUNE
WAS 50 DEGREES. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 2003.

THE LOW TEMPERATURE DIPPED BELOW 60 DEGREES 11 TIMES IN THE MONTH OF
JUNE. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS IN 2003 WHEN IT OCCURRED 17
TIMES.

IT WAS THE SECOND WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD WITH 10.06 INCHES OF RAIN.
THE WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD IS 2003 WITH 10.27 INCHES.

THERE WERE 19 DAYS THIS JUNE WHERE THERE WAS AT LEAST 0.01 INCHES OF
RAINFALL. THIS HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN CENTRAL PARK.

AT LEAST A TRACE OF RAINFALL WAS REPORTED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE.

For those that don’t operate a business in California like I do, I was surprised today to learn that Sacramento State College of Business Administration and Center for Small Business have complete a study of the AB32 Greenhouse gas law, and its impact on California small businesses.

The law requires that by 2020 the state’s greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels, a roughly 25% reduction under business as usual estimates. The California Air Resources Board, under the California Environmental Protection Agency, is to prepare plans to achieve the objectives stated in the Act.

Will I keep my business in California with a tab like that? Probably not. It would be economic suicide for me. – Anthony

California Small Businesses Face $50,000 Cost from State Implementation of AB 32

from PR-inside.com

A new study released today found that small businesses in California will pay an additional $49,691 as a result of the California Air Resources Board’s implementation of AB 32. Citing severe economic impacts, a coalition of small business organizations called today for the suspension of the regulatory proceedings to implement California’s greenhouse gas program until the report’s findings are analyzed
and mitigation measures are added to the state plan.

The report concluded that when the program is fully implemented, the average annual loss in gross state output from small businesses alone would be $182.6 billion, approximately a 10% loss in total gross state output. This will translate into nearly 1.1 million lost jobs in California. Lost labor income is estimated to be $76.8 billion, with nearly $5.8 billion lost in indirect taxes.

“We support the state’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but we are very concerned that these costs will apply disproportionally to California small business. Consumers will be hurt and the environmental goals will not be achieved,” said Esteban Soriano, Chairman of the California Small Business Association and a founding member of the California Small Business Roundtable.

The analysis of the state Scoping Plan was led by Sanjay Varshney, Dean of the College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento and Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing and Director, Center for Small Business, California State University, Sacramento. The study reveals that when the plan is fully implemented, California families will be facing increased annual costs of $3,857.

Varshney explained that the study’s cost analysis was based on the California Air Resources Board’s own findings, which revealed significant cost increases. The study’s findings are consistent with the Peer Review analysis that CARB commissioned, which also concluded that the cost of the AB 32 Scoping Plan would be significant, and that CARB had significantly underestimated these costs.

“Given California’s current economic plight, the state must refrain from imposing new fees on taxpayers to pay for an expanded bureaucracy,” said Michael Shaw of the National Federation of Independent Business. “When Assembly Bill 32 authorized this program in 2006, CARB promised to develop a greenhouse gas plan that would provide benefits to small business, not bankruptcy.”

The study also found that in order to cope with the increased costs generated by the AB 32 program, consumers will be forced to cut their discretionary spending by 26.2%.

“Californians will be getting less and paying more. How can the small business community survive in a political climate so determined to put us out of business,?” asked Griselda Barajas, owner of Tex Mex Restaurant in downtown Sacramento, where the study was released.

“Many lawmakers who enjoy our tacos will see a significant increase in their daily lunch bills if these problems are not addressed,” said Barajas. “All of the Capitol community folks who dine at Tex Mex will have to bear the burden of an unfunded mandate placed against my business.”

According to the authors, the study utilized IMPLAN, a widely used economic modeling program that has more than 1,500 active users in the United States and internationally. These include clients in federal and state government, universities, and private sector consultants. Joining the California Small Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Business at Monday’s event were the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce.

For a copy of the study, please contact Alison MacLeod at 916-225-6317 or amacleod@ka-pow.com : mailto:amacleod@ka-pow.com .

For California Small Business AssociationAlison MacLeod,

More from the “weather is not climate department”. Emphasis below mine. And it is having an effect not only on crops but tourism in the Northeast US.  – Anthony

Statement as of 4:00 PM EDT on July 9, 2009
record event report … corrected
National Weather Service Gray ME
400 PM EDT Thursday Jul 09 2009

… More record cold weather for Portland Maine…

The temperature at the Portland jetport only reached 58 degrees
yesterday. This set a record for the coldest high temperature on
July 7th. The old record was 59 degrees set in 1961. To put this in
another perspective… the normal low temperature for July 7th is 58
degrees.

The low temperature on Wednesday was 55 degrees. This produced a
range of only 3 degrees between the high and low temperatures which
is a record for the smallest daily range in temperatures on July
7th. The old record was a 4 degree spread set in 1963 and 1995.

The 3 degree daily temperature range yesterday also tied the record
for the smallest daily temperature range for any day in July. The
record was established on July 16th, 1961 and occurred five more
times before this year.

The average temperature yesterday was 57 degrees… which tied 1961
as the coldest average temperature for July 7th.

The high of 58 yesterday tied July 6th of 1956 as the second coldest
high ever recorded at the Portland jetport in July. The coldest high
ever in July was 57 degrees on the 4th of July in 1992.

On the 1st and 2nd of this month Portland only reached 59 degrees
both days… setting records for the coldest high temperature each
day and also tying several other days for the fourth coldest high
ever recorded in July.

Portland has set a record cold high temperature four out of the
first eight days this month. Here is a list of the record cold high
temperatures so far this month…

Date high temp. 2009 old record high and year
July 1st 59 degrees 62 degrees in 1976
July 2nd 59 degrees 63 degrees in 1986
July 7th 60 degrees 64 degrees in 1956
July 8th 58 degrees 59 degrees in 1961

Here is a list of the coldest high temperatures ever recorded in the
month of July at the Portland jetport. Four of the ten coldest
highs occurred in the first eight days of this month…

Rank temperature date
1 57 degrees July 4, 1992
2 58 degrees July 6, 1956
58 degrees July 8, 2009 <===
4 59 degrees July 8, 1961
59 degrees July 16, 1961
59 degrees July 30, 1976
59 degrees July 3, 1987
59 degrees July 1, 2009 <===
59 degrees July 2, 2009 <===
10 60 degrees July 7, 2009 <===
11 61 degrees several dates

The normal high temperature for the month of July is 78.8 degrees.

Along with the cold weather portlanders have also had to deal with
soaking rain this month. There have been three days so far with
around an inch and a half of rain. Rainfall of 1.41 inches fell on
the 2nd, 1.57 inches fell on the 7th and 1.50 inches fell on the 8th.

The 1.41 inches on the 2nd set a record for daily precipitation for
the date… topping the old record of 1.32 inches set in 1983. The
1.57 inches on the 7th was also a record… breaking the old mark for
the date of 1.34 inches set in 1935. The 1.50 inches on the 8th was
far short of the record 3.66 inches that fell on July 8th, 1915.

Temperature records at the Portland jetport began on November 25,
1940 and precipitation records go back to 1871.

&&

Note… corrected date in second table and added normal high for July.

Meanwhile the world temperature anomaly as measured by satellite is near zero – Anthony

NOAA: U.S. Temperature and Precipitation Near-Average for June

July 10, 2009

The June 2009 temperature and precipitation for the contiguous United States were near the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

The average June 2009 temperature of 69.5 degrees F was 0.2 degree F above the 20th Century average.  Precipitation across the contiguous United States in June 2009 averaged 2.90 inches, which is 0.01 inch above the long-term value.

U.S. Temperature Highlights

• Above-normal temperatures prevailed in the South, Southeast, and parts of the Northwest, while below-average temperatures were recorded in the Northeast and areas in the Southwest and North Central regions.
• Florida experienced its fourth-warmest June on record. On the cooler side were Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which experienced their ninth- and tenth-coolest June, respectively.

U.S. Precipitation Highlights

• Precipitation was below normal in the southern and northern tier states, but above-normal in the Northeast, West, and parts of the Southwest and West North Central regions.
• Moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 13 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought conditions slightly worsened in the Mississippi Valley, Georgia, and the Carolinas. Drought improvements were seen in the southeastern Rockies and southern High Plains, but remained unchanged in the West.

Other Highlights

• Throughout the High Plains states, flooding and hail affected crops. In Nebraska, preliminary estimates indicate over 150,000 acres of crops were damaged by severe weather, with losses exceeding $10 million.
• There were 6,864 wildfires across the nation in June — the fewest number of fires for the month over the past 10 years. The 525,937 acres burned during June was 435,409 acres below the 2000-2009 average. The 1,903,247 acres burned since January was near the 2000-2009 average of 1,927,474 acres.

NCDC’s preliminary reports, which assess the current state of the climate, are released soon after the end of each month. These analyses are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision.  Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

From the “would you, could you, with a boat department”. Bill goes macro. The Simpsons are cited by patent watcher.

Patent watcher “theodp,” who tipped us off to the filings, says he was reminded of “The Simpsons” as he read through them. “The richest man in the world hatches a plan to alter weather and ecology in return for insurance premiums and fees from governments and individuals,” he writes. “It’s got kind of a Mr. Burns feel to it, no?”

I guess Bill has been talking to the G-8 people and their temperature control ideas. Note to Bill: nature will squish you and your ideas like a bug. In the meantime with ACE values being low according to COAPS Ryan Maue and Steve McIntyre showing cooler temperatures on the SST map for Gulf Coast hurricane development areas, it looks like they may have to wait a year or two to try out their ideas. The idea? Basically, ship mounted pumps to circulate cooler water from below the thermocline to the surface by forcing surface water downward first. Good luck with that. – Anthony

Spoof photo from the New York Post

One force of nature vs. another: Bill Gates tries to stop hurricanes

A diagram from one of the newly disclosed Gates and Myhrvold patent filings, depicting a deployment of hurricane-supression vessels in the Gulf of Mexico.

Recent patent filings have shown Bill Gates and his friends exploring subjects as diverse as electromagnetic engines and beer kegs. Now they’re thinking even bigger — trying to stop hurricanes.

Microsoft’s chairman is among the inventors listed on a new batch of patent applications that propose using large fleets of vessels to suppress hurricanes through various methods of mixing warm water from the surface of the ocean with colder water at greater depths. The idea is to decrease the surface temperature, reducing or eliminating the heat-driven condensation that fuels the giant storms.

The filings were made by Searete LLC, an entity tied to Intellectual Ventures, the Bellevue-based patent and invention house run by Nathan Myhrvold, the former Microsoft chief technology officer. Myhrvold and several others are listed along with Gates as inventors.

The diagram at right is from one of five related patent applications made public this morning. So how exactly do they plan to stop hurricanes? Here’s an excerpt from the filing that explains the diagram.

Vessel 100 is a tub-like structure having one or more walls 110 and a bottom 115. Vessel 100 may be held buoyant in the water by one or more buoyancy tanks 120 which may be used to maintain the buoyancy of vessel 100 and further may be used to control the height of walls 110 above the water level. Vessel 100 also includes a conduit 125 whose horizontal cross section is substantially smaller than the horizontal cross section of the tub portion 130 of the vessel defined by walls 110. In an exemplary embodiment, conduit 125 extends well below the ocean surface including depths below the ocean’s thermocline.

In most circumstances, most of the sunlight impinging on the ocean surface is absorbed in the surface layer. The surface layer therefore heats up. Wind and waves move water in this surface layer which distributes heat within it. The temperature may therefore be reasonably uniform to depths extending a few hundred feet down from the ocean surface. Below this mixed layer, however, the temperature decreases rapidly with depth, for example, as much as 20 degrees Celsius with an additional 150 m (500 ft) of depth. This area of rapid transition is called the thermocline. Below it, the temperature continues to decrease with depth, but far more gradually. In the Earth’s oceans, approximately 90% of the mass of water is below the thermocline. This deep ocean consists of layers of substantially equal density, being poorly mixed, and may be as cold as -2 to 3.degree. C.

Therefore, the lower depths of the ocean may be used as a huge heat/energy sink which may be exploited by vessel 100. When vessel 100 is deployed at sea, waves 135 may lap over the top of walls 110 to input warm (relative to deeper waters) surface ocean water into tub 130. Tub 130 will fill to a level 140 which is above the average ocean level depicted as level 145. Because of the difference between levels 140 and 145, a pressure head is created thereby pushing warm surface ocean water in a downward direction 150 down through conduit 125 to exit into the cold ocean depths (relative to near surface waters) through one or more openings 155. In an exemplary embodiment, the depth of opening 155 may be located below the ocean’s thermocline, the approximate bottom of which is depicted as line 160. This cycle will be continuous in bringing warm surface ocean water to great depth as ocean waves continue to input water into tub 130. If many of vessel 100 are distributed throughout a region of water, the temperature of the surface of the water may be altered.

“Many” is the important concept there at the end.

Gates, Myhrvold and associates aren’t the first to propose reducing the ocean’s surface temperature as a means of suppressing hurricanes, said David Nolan, an associate professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.

“Every couple of years there’s a news story that gets picked up for some hurricane-suppression idea,” Nolan said via phone this morning. “They’re all kooky in their own way. Some of them are more plausible than others, but they all face an enormous problem of scale. … You would have to cover an incredible area with this effect to reduce the temperature of the ocean by a significant amount.”

Of course, a big difference in this case is that one of the people making the suggestion is one of the world’s richest men. But don’t look for Gates to fund the deployment of thousands of these vessels. One of the patent filings proposes paying for the equipment through the sale of insurance policies in hurricane-prone areas, in addition to funding from state, federal and local government agencies.

Patent watcher “theodp,” who tipped us off to the filings, says he was reminded of “The Simpsons” as he read through them. “The richest man in the world hatches a plan to alter weather and ecology in return for insurance premiums and fees from governments and individuals,” he writes. “It’s got kind of a Mr. Burns feel to it, no?”

The hurricane-suppression patent applications date to early 2008, but they were first made public this morning.

These and previous Searete LLC patent filings are believed to result from brainstorming sessions regularly held by Intellectual Ventures, in which Gates has been known to take part. It’s not clear how or when Intellectual Ventures might go forward with any of these ideas.

10.7 solar flux monitoring station operated by the National Research Council Canada and the Canadian Space Agency

More on the NRC 10.7 observatory here

JohnA writes in:

Just in case you wondered whether the recent large sunspot indicated an upswing in radio flux from the Sun: I went and asked Ken Tapping.

The answer: http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/

This could be the first “radio quiet” solar cycle

Previously on this blog, I’d mentioned my skepticism that one decent sunspot marked the end of the hiatus in the solar cycle we’ve seen for nearly two years. It might be my nature, but everybody has been wrong before.

As part of my public duty to actually ask real scientists monitoring the Sun, I wrote to Dr Ken Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in British Columbia:

Dear Dr Tapping

For the first time in a very long time, the Sun has managed to produce a sunspot (1024) which has lasted more than a few hours.

Is there any sign of an upswing in radio emissions indicating an end to the hiatus?

Best regards

John

and Dr Tapping replied (with my emphasis):

Hi John,

Last weekend I saw a really nice sunspot group on the Sun, which could have been part of the new cycle. The solar radio flux went up a little while it was there. However now the flux has slumped back to low values again.

Some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it. I’m not sure what that really means, so I am making no suggestion as to what is going on.

Being very conservative, according to the measurements being made under our Solar Radio Monitoring Programme, we have yet to see signs the next cycle is really under way.

Regards,

Ken

Now this is what I’d thought, that the nice sunspot (1024) we’d seen did not presage a change in the behavior of the Sun: the solar wind speed remained subdued, coronal holes remained very small, there were no prominences to speak of.

It also baffles me how “some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it”. If there are very few sunspots and the radio flux remains extremely subdued, on what basis are these theorists making their statements?

It could be that this is the first “radio quiet” solar cycle … anyone believe that?

So for solar physicists, it remains “interesting times” and probably a time to clear out some old theories and start again.

My thanks to Dr Tapping for the correspondence.

“Sometimes, we hear that global warming causes cooling. In this case, global warming causes global averageness. In all three cases, it is bad news.”

- Luboš Motl in

UAH global temperature anomaly – hitting the slopes