Controversial new climate change results

University of Bristol Press release issued 9 November 2009

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO₂ than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO₂ should start to diminish as CO₂ emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

###

Here is the abstract from GRL:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.

This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO₂ and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

According to Pat Michaels at World Climate Report:

Dr. Knorr carefully analyzed the record of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and anthropogenic land-use changes for the past 150 years. Keeping in mind the various sources of potential errors inherent in these data, he developed several different possible solutions to fitting a trend to the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. In all cases, he found no significant trend (at the 95% significance level) in airborne fraction since 1850.

(Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years)

Here is Figure 1 from the Knorr paper:

Figure 1. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (as determined from ice cores, thin dotted lines, and direct measurements, thin black line) has remained constantly proportional to the annual amount of CO2 released by human activities (thick black line). The proportion is about 46% (thick dotted line). (Figure source: Knorr, 2009)

The conclusion of the Knorr paper reads:

Given the importance of the [the anthropogenic CO2 airborne fraction] for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course. One pre-requisite is that we gain a thorough understand of why it has stayed approximately constant in the past, another that we improve our ability to detect if and when it changes. The most urgent need seems to exist for more accurate estimates of land use emissions.

Another possible approach is to add more data through the combination of many detailed regional studies such as the ones by Schuster and Watson (2007) and Le Quéré et al. (2007), or using process based models combined with data assimilation approaches (Rayner et al., 2005). If process models are used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in order to answer the question of why the AF has remained constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale fluctuations or a stronger secular trend.

Michaels adds:

In other words, like we have repeated over and over, if the models can’t replicate the past (for the right reasons), they can’t be relied on for producing accurate future projections. And as things now stand, the earth is responding to anthropogenic CO2 emissions in a different (and perhaps better) manner than we thought that it would.

Yet here we are, on the brink of economy crippling legislation to tackle a problem we don’t fully understand and the science is most certainly not settled on.

Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University

Two hundred years ago, Charles Lyell coined the phrase “The present is the key to the past.” In today’s highly contentious issues of global climate change, we might well add “The past is the key to the future, i.e., to forecast future geologic events, we must understand past climate changes.  This paper documents past global climate changes in the geologic and historic past.

Recent laser imaging of the Earth’s surface provides new evidence for abrupt, fluctuating, warm and cool climatic episodes that could not have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO₂.  In a paper presented at the national meeting of the Geological Society of America in Portland, OR, Professor Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presented new data from airborne laser imagery showing well-defined, previously unknown, multiple moraines deposited by glaciers 11,700 to 10,250 years ago.

At least 9 significant, abrupt periods of warming that resulted in retreat of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet are documented by moraines from successive glacial retreats in the Fraser Lowland of NW Washington l(Fig. 1).  In addition, smaller multiple glacier recessions are found within the more prominent episodes of glacier retreat.  As indicated by the amount of glacier recession between each of the successive moraines, the warming events were of greater magnitude than those observed in recent centuries.

Figure 1.  Successive terminal moraines from short–term glacier recessions caused by climatic warming between 11,700 and 10,250 years ago.

Isotope data from Greenland ice cores and show a consistent pattern of fluctuating warm and cool periods over the past 500 years (Fig. 2).  The average period of warming/cooling oscillations over the past 500 years is 27 years, remarkably similar to the period of alternation between warm and cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Figure 2.  Paleotemperatures derived from oxygen isotope measurements of the GISP2 Greenland ice core.  Red peaks are times of warming and blue are times of cooling.  The average time period for each climatic oscillation is 27 years.

During the past century, two episodes of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred (Fig. 3), all of which can be tied to glacial oscillations, oceanic temperature changes, atmospheric temperature changes, and solar variation.

Figure 3.  Coincidence of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), global temperature, and glacier fluctuations in the North Cascades.  Glaciers advanced during the 1880–1915 cool period when the PDO was cool, then when the PDO switched to its warm mode, global temperatures warmed, and glaciers retreated from ~1915–1945.  The PDO changed from warm to cool ~1945–1977, global temperatures cooled and glaciers advanced once again.  In 1977, the PDO switched from cool to warm mode, global temperatures warmed, and glaciers retreated.  In 1999, the PDO changed back to its cool mode and global cooling began.

What we can learn from this geologic climate changes is that the past is indeed the key to the future.  In 1999, the year after the warmest year of recent times, I projected the climate pattern from the past century and past 500 years into the future and predicted that we would be due for 25–30 years of global cooling beginning about 2000.  The PDO changed from its warm to cool mode in 1999 and since then we have had global cooling, quite moderate to flat (interrupted by two warm El Ninos) and intensifying since 2007.

Figure 4.  Projection of climate changes of the last century and past 500 years into the future.  The black curve is temperature variation from 1900 to 2009; the red line is the IPCC projected warming from the IPCC website in 2000; the blue curves are several possible projections of climate change to 2040+ based on past global cooling periods (1945-1977; 1880 to 1915; and 1790 to 1820).  The lack of sun spots during the past solar cycle has surpassed all records since the Dalton Minimum and some solar physicists have suggested we may be headed for a Dalton or Maunder type mimimum with severe cooling.

Abstract of paper presented to Geological Society of America, Oct. 19, 2009

THE ROLE OF THE OCEANS AND THE SUN IN LATE PLEISTOCENE AND HISTORIC GLACIAL AND CLIMATIC FLUCTUATIONS

EASTERBROOK, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA 98225, don.easterbrook [ -at -] wwu.edu

Lidar imagery of the southern part of the Fraser Lowland in WA reveals previously unknown, multiple, latest Pleistocene (Sumas Stade) end moraines overlying Everson glaciomarine drift (gmd). Multiple marine shorelines extend from about 540’ to about 100’above present sea level and are truncated by two of the oldest Sumas end moraines. These moraines are younger than the underlying Everson gmd, which is well dated at 11,700 ¹⁴C yrs. B.P., and older than 11,400 ¹⁴C yrs. B.P. basal bog dates behind the moraines. Recession of the ice from the outermost moraines was followed by building of at least nine end moraines, some of which clearly represent glacial readvances. Basal bog dates from a kettle in outwash from the youngest Sumas moraine has been dated at 10,250 ¹⁴C yrs. B.P.

Isotope data from Greenland ice cores and historic atmospheric and oceanic temperature records show a consistent pattern of fluctuating 25-30–year warm and cool periods over the past 500 years. During the past century, five of these climate fluctuations can be tied to glacial oscillations, oceanic temperature changes, atmospheric temperature changes, and solar variation.

The question is—what drives these oscillations? The older fluctuations can be linked to changes in ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be isotope production rates in the upper atmosphere, suggesting variation in cosmogenic radiation. Historic climatic and oceanic temperature fluctuations are associated with solar variations. The excellent correlation of glacial, climatic, oceanic, and solar variation strongly suggests cause and effect relationships. Past patterns of these variations allow projection into the future.

Global Temperatures This Decade Will Be The Warmest On Record…

…And It Will Be Exploited By Those Who Fail To Understand The Reasons For The Rise

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

INITIAL NOTES

For some visitors to this blog, this post will be a merging and rehashing of a few of my earlier posts. But this post is different in a very important way. I have attempted to simplify the discussion of El Nino-caused step changes for those with less technical backgrounds.

The post does assume the reader knows of El Nino and La Nina events. If not, here are links to two NOAA El Nino Frequently Asked Question web pages:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html

The following narrated video “Visualizing El Nino” from the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio provides an excellent overview of the 1997/98 E; Nino, one of the El Nino events that created the aftereffects illustrated in this post.

YouTube Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbNzw1CCKHo

I have provided links to the referenced studies and to the posts that provide more detailed explanations at the end of the following. They do not appear within the general discussion of this post.

Many of the illustrations in the following are .gif animations, with 5- to 10-second pauses between cells.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES THIS DECADE WILL BE THE WARMEST ON RECORD

It became apparent a number of years ago that the current decade, the 2000s, would have the highest surface temperature since the start of the instrument temperature record. Prior to now, the record decade for Global Surface Temperature Anomalies, Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomalies, and Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies had been the 1990s. Table 1 shows the average 1990s and 2000s (to date) temperature anomalies furnished by different suppliers, and the difference between the two decades. And with the end of this decade drawing near, one should expect to hear of this new record time and time again. There are those who will exploit this in the next few months and in the years to come. Those parties will, of course, blame anthropogenic greenhouse gases for the rise.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2i7mj4i.png
Table 1

THOSE WHO TRUMPET THE ELEVATED TEMPERATURES WILL FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NON-LINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EL NINO-SOUTHERN OSCILLATION (ENSO) AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

There have been a number of recent research papers that have illustrated a linear relationship between El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and global temperature. These papers contradict what is clearly visible in the instrument temperature record, and that is, that the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is non-linear. In a comparison of global temperatures and natural variables, the researchers scale one of the ENSO indices, and after adjusting for other natural variables such as solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols, the researchers claim the difference between those natural variables and global temperatures must be caused by the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A simplified example of these comparisons is shown in Figure 1; it compares global SST anomalies and scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, one of the ENSO indices. It also shows their linear trends. I’ve excluded volcanic aerosol and solar adjustments to simplify the illustration. Note how the Global SST anomaly trend is increasing while the NINO3.4 SST anomaly trend is decreasing. As noted earlier, there are those who would like you to believe that the difference in those trends is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

http://i34.tinypic.com/3589pj9.png
Figure 1

MULTIYEAR AFTEREFFECTS OF ENSO ARE VISIBLE AS STEP CHANGES IN THE SST RECORDS

The first dataset to be discussed is the sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. This dataset represents approximately 25% of the global ocean surface area between 60S and 65N. A sizeable area, as can be seen in Figure 2.

http://i34.tinypic.com/iwrz39.png
Figure 2

Figure 2 also shows the location of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific. Its coordinates are 5S-5N, 170W-120W. Climate change researchers use this and other similar datasets when studying the magnitudes of El Nino and La Nina events and how often those events occur. Meteorologists also monitor NINO3.4 SST anomalies and other ENSO indexes to help them forecast the impacts of the current event on regional climate, hurricanes, etc. The SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 area of the Pacific correlate well with global temperature measurements. That is, when the SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 area rise during an El Nino event, global SST anomalies, and global TLT anomalies, and global surface temperature anomalies typically rise by lesser amounts. Researchers assume this relationship is constant, that it is linear, but as will be shown in the following, it is not linear. The global response to La Nina events is not the same as it is to El Nino events. This will be clearer as the discussion progresses.

Keep in mind that it is not only the SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 that rise and fall during El Nino and La Nina events. As can be seen in the video “Visualizing El Nino” above, the SST anomalies entire tropical Pacific are impacted.

Of the 9 official El Nino events since November 1981 (the start year of the SST dataset used to illustrate the effect), only two of these specific major traditional El Nino events occurred, one in 1986/87/88 and the other in 1997/98. See Figure 3, which is a .gif animation of the time-series graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies. The other significant traditional El Nino in 1982/83 was counteracted by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2la6640.gif
Figure 3
Links to the individual cells of Figure 3:
Link to Figure 3 Cell A:
http://i33.tinypic.com/9pw0no.png
Link to Figure 3 Cell B:
http://i36.tinypic.com/apigjq.png
Link to Figure 3 Cell C:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2yorexg.png

Something very curious happens in the East Indian and West Pacific area of the global oceans shown in Figure 2. The SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans rise in steps in response to specific El Nino events. These particular El Nino events are major events that are traditional in nature, as opposed to El Nino Modoki (pseudo El Nino events), and they are also El Nino events that have not been impacted by explosive volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

Figure 4 is a .gif animation of two datasets presented in different ways. Cell A is a graph that compares the SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific to the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The NINO3.4 SST anomalies have been scaled (multiplied by a factor of 0.2 in this case) so that the changes in them during the El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 are approximately the same magnitude as the responses in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. Note how the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans had little response to the 1982/83 El Nino. As discussed earlier, that El Nino was counteracted by the sunlight-blocking volcanic aerosols of the explosive eruption of El Chichon. Note also that there is a dip in the East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies in 1991 and a rebound a few years later. That dip and rebound is caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. In Cell B, linear trend lines have been added to the same datasets to show the relationship presented by researchers who assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. The linear trends skew perspective and hide the actual cause of the rise in SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. In Cell C, I’ve included the average East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies for the period before the 1986/76/88 El Nino, the period between the 1986/76/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events, and the period after the 1997/98 El Nino. These averages highlight the step changes that occurred in this portion of the global ocean. Again, these step changes are aftereffects of the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events.

http://i37.tinypic.com/smrt44.gif
Figure 4
Links to the individual cells of Figure 4:
Link to Figure 4 Cell A:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2cparf4.png
Link to Figure 4 Cell B:
http://i38.tinypic.com/dz5go.png
Link to Figure 4 Cell C:
http://i33.tinypic.com/14wu8pk.png

As you will note, the multiyear aftereffects aren’t true step changes. The SST anomalies for the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans don’t remain at the new higher temperatures indefinitely. They do, however, remain at higher levels (failing to respond fully to the La Nina) until the next series of lesser El Nino events drive the temperatures back up again, helping to maintain the higher levels. (The effects are easier to describe as step changes, which is why I refer to them that way.)

It is important to notice that the response of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans to 1998/99/00 La Nina was not the same as the response to the El Nino that came before it. The SST anomalies for this area of the global oceans rose as would be expected in response to the El Nino, but it did not respond fully to the La Nina phase. Global SST response to La Nina events is not always the same as it is to El Nino events. And this difference between how Global SST responds to El Nino and La Nina events causes Global SST to rise.

These step changes in the East Indian and West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies are important for a number of reasons. First, the oceans represent approximately 70% of the surface area of the globe, and SST anomalies are included in the calculation of global surface temperature by GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC. Refer again to Table 1. In fact, the NCDC’s Optimum Interpolation SST dataset (OI.V2) used in Figure 4 has been included by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in their GISTEMP product since 1982. Second, these step changes are not reproduced by climate models. They also are not acknowledged by the scientific community–if they were, the papers listed at the end of this post would not illustrate a linear relationship between ENSO and global temperature. I have searched but have been unable to find any scientific paper that discusses these step changes. Third, the step changes bias the global SST anomalies upward and give the impression of a gradual increase in SST anomalies. This can be seen in a comparison graph of the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, the SST anomalies of the “Rest of the World” (East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans), and the combination of the two, Figure 5. The period since 1996 is unique in the last 40+ years. There haven’t been any major volcanic eruptions to add noise to the data. This is why the data in Figure 5 starts in 1996.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2ezjk9s.png
Figure 5

Note how in Figure 5 the East Indian and West Pacific SST anomalies linger at the elevated levels while the SST anomalies for the “Rest of the World” are mimicking the variability of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, shown in Figure 3. (That is, the SST anomalies for the “Rest of the World” are responding as researchers expect to both El Nino and La Nina events.) Over the next few years, ocean currents “mix” the elevated SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans with the depressed SST anomalies of the “Rest of the World” oceans, dropping one and raising the other, until they intersect in 2003. This is more than 4 years after the end of the 1997/98 El Nino. Because the Global SST anomalies are a combination of the two, they are biased upward by the elevated East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies and by the mixing with the waters of the “Rest of the World”. This gives the false impression of a gradual increase in global SST anomalies.

In other words, the effects of the major traditional El Nino events can linger for at least 4 years, causing gradual increases in global sea surface temperatures during that time. This gradual increase is incorrectly attributed to anthropogenic sources.

These effects are also discussed and illustrated in my video “The Lingering Effects of the 1997/98 El Nino”.

YouTube Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uv4Xc4D0Dk

MULTIYEAR AFTEREFFECTS OF ENSO ARE ALSO VISIBLE AS STEP CHANGES IN THE TLT RECORDS

Since 1979, two groups have analyzed the satellite-based Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometer data to determine atmospheric temperatures at different levels. These groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). We’ll be using the data from RSS in this discussion. One dataset, the Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomalies, correlate well with the global surface temperature anomalies determined from direct land and sea surface temperature observations.

Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomalies also show upward step changes in response to the significant traditional 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events. And similar to the discussion of sea surface temperatures above, only a portion of the global TLT anomalies show clear signs of these upward steps. In this case, it’s the latitude band of 20N to 82.5N or the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Refer to Figure 6 for the area of the globe included within these latitudes. It represents in the neighborhood of 33% of the global surface area.

http://i34.tinypic.com/id7h4k.png
Figure 6

The graph in Figure 7 compares the NINO3.4 SST anomalies to the Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies are used again as a reference for the timing and magnitude of significant traditional El Nino events. As you can see, the TLT anomaly data for this area of the globe is noisy, but it is obvious that the TLT anomalies rose since 1979, a rise that is normally attributed to manmade greenhouse gases.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2coiln8.png
Figure 7

A common technique used to reduce data noise is to smooth it by calculating the average of a number of months before and after a given month, and to calculate this average for each month for the entire length of the dataset. (The same technique was used in Figure 5.) The TLT anomaly data in Figure 8 has been smoothed with a 13-month running average filter. Note how, when compare to Figure 7, there is much less noise in the smoothed data. Figure 8 is another .gif animation. It illustrates the TLT anomaly data for the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and the scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies from different points of view. Cell A illustrates the data without any comments. Depending on your perspective, you can see a gradual rise in the TLT anomaly dataset that’s disrupted by ENSO events and volcanic eruptions or you can see three periods of relatively flat TLT anomalies that are punctuated by ENSO and volcanic eruptions with two major step increases caused by the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Nino events. In Cell B, the impacts of the two major volcanic eruptions are noted. These are the 1982 eruption of EL Chichon and the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991. As with the SST data, the El Chichon eruption counteracted the impact of the 1982/83 El Nino. But the lesser El Nino in 1991/92 was no match for the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and TLT anomalies made a substantial drop. The TLT anomalies rebounded a few years later as the volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere dissipated. Cell C shows the positive linear trend of the TLT anomalies for the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and it shows the negative trend in the SST anomalies of the NINO3.4 region of the equatorial Pacific. The difference between the two, as discussed earlier, is attributed by researchers to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, the attribution is unfounded when the global data is broken down into smaller subsets. The heat released by significant El Nino events can and do cause step changes in the TLT anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. This is clearly visible when the average temperatures before and after those significant El Nino events are displayed on the graph, Cell D.

http://i35.tinypic.com/j0f89k.gif
Figure 8
Links to the individual cells of Figure 8:
Link to Figure 8 Cell A:
http://i37.tinypic.com/30rraky.png
Link to Figure 8 Cell B:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2yjocr9.png
Link to Figure 8 Cell C:
http://i38.tinypic.com/2jcdc13.png
Link to Figure 8 Cell D:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2ue1jz8.png

It is primarily those two shifts in the Mid-To-High Latitude TLT Anomalies of the Northern Hemisphere that cause the upward trend in Global TLT Anomalies.

DO ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES FUEL EL NINO EVENTS?

The source of heat for El Nino events is the Tropical Pacific, and there is no evidence that greenhouse gases have a significant effect on the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) anomalies of the Tropical Pacific. Refer to Figure 9. It is also a .gif animation. Cell A shows the comparison graph of Tropical Pacific OHC, scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, and scaled Sato Index of Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness. The Sato Index data is presented to illustrate the timing of explosive volcanic eruptions. Like the other comparisons in this post, the NINO3.4 SST anomalies are used to illustrate the timing and magnitude of El Nino and La Nina events. The OHC dataset was created by the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC). It presents OHC to depths of 700 meters. This OHC data was introduced with the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems”. Cell B highlights the two decade-long declines in Tropical Pacific OHC. Cell C calls attention to the upward surges (steps) in Tropical Pacific OHC that occurred during the multiyear La Nina events that followed the 1972/73 and 1997/98 El Nino events. And Cell D highlights a curious rise in Tropical Pacific OHC that occurred in the few years leading up to the 1997/98 El Nino. I have searched for but have not found any scientific paper that discusses this sudden surge that fueled the 1997/98 El Nino.

http://i36.tinypic.com/dpzu6h.gif
Figure 9
Links to the individual cells of Figure 9:
Link to Figure 9 Cell A:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2gwys1t.png
Link to Figure 9 Cell B:
http://i37.tinypic.com/kamom.png
Link to Figure 9 Cell C:
http://i35.tinypic.com/w075g6.png
Link to Figure 9 Cell D:
http://i34.tinypic.com/10e28ic.png

An additional note about Figure 9: Note how the OHC dips during the El Nino events and rebounds during the La Nina events. The El Nino discharges heat from the Tropical Pacific, and the La Nina recharges the heat. This is accomplished by variations in total cloud amount. If the La Nina is not being impacted by volcanic aerosols and if the La Nina lasts for more than one year, ocean heat content rises above its previous level, creating the upward step.

The changes in Tropical Cloud Amount Percentage mimic NINO3.4 SST anomalies. Refer to Figure 10. That is, when NINO3.4 SST anomalies rise, Tropical Pacific Cloud Amount increases, and when NINO3.4 SST anomalies drop during the La Nina phase, Tropical Pacific Cloud Amount decreases. Less cloud cover means more downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) is able to warm the Tropical Pacific. In Cell C of Figure 10, the sudden drop in Tropical Pacific Cloud Amount in 1995 is highlighted. As noted above, it appears this decline in cloud amount fueled the 1997/98 El Nino.

http://i37.tinypic.com/24wztqe.gif
Figure 10
Links to the individual cells of Figure 10:
Link to Figure 10 Cell A:
http://i35.tinypic.com/4rxele.jpg
Link to Figure 10 Cell B:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2z4d6hc.jpg
Link to Figure 10 Cell C:
http://i36.tinypic.com/34obno7.jpg

NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC SST ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DIFFERENCE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE BETWEEN THE 1990s AND THE 2000s

The SST anomalies of the North Atlantic Ocean are also impacted by another natural variable, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO. The AMO is a semi-periodic variation (50 to 80 years) in the SST anomalies of the North Atlantic that has its basis in Thermohaline Circulation (THC) or Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). These variations are visible in the reconstruction of North Atlantic SST from 1567 to 1990, Figure 11. This dataset was created by Gray et al (2004) “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Index Reconstruction”. (IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-062. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.)
http://i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg
Figure 11

For the period of the instrument temperature record, the AMO is presented as detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies. Refer to Figure 12, which is also a .gif animation. Cell A of Figure 12 illustrates the AMO data calculated by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) from January 1956 to March 2009. The data has been smoothed with a 37-month filter to remove the noise. Cell B notes that the AMO is a naturally occurring variation in the SST anomalies of the North Atlantic. And Cell C illustrates the average AMO SST values for the 1990s and the 2000s. The difference between these two averages represents the contribution of the AMO to the rise in North Atlantic SST Anomalies from the 1990s to the 2000s. Keep in mind that, while the North Atlantic covers only a surface area that is approximately 15% of the global oceans, the AMO is also known to also impact the surface temperatures of Europe and North America and the SST of the Eastern Tropical Pacific.

http://i38.tinypic.com/oj4bqg.gif
Figure 12
Links to the individual cells of Figure 12:
Link to Figure 12 Cell A:
http://i37.tinypic.com/mwqeqh.jpg
Link to Figure 12 Cell B:
http://i34.tinypic.com/kaqtjq.jpg
Link to Figure 12 Cell C:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2gtddn7.jpg

CLOSING

There is little doubt that the decade of the 2000s will have higher land surface, sea surface, and lower troposphere temperature anomalies than the 1990s. There will be those who will wrongly attribute the rise from decade to decade to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, when it is very apparent that the actual cause is the lingering effects of the 1997/98 El Nino event. Attempts will be made to contradict the obvious by those who fail to acknowledge or comprehend the multiyear aftereffects of significant traditional El Nino events. They will present numerous unfounded arguments. Here are a few that have been tried.

Argument 1: The short-term global warming of El Nino events are countered by the short-term global cooling of the La Nina events that follow them.

What The Instrument Temperature Record Shows: That’s true for only parts of the globe and for some El Nino events. It is not true, however, for the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans and for the TLT anomalies of the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Refer to Figures 4 and 8. The effects of the 1986/87/88 and the 1997/98 El Nino lingered through the La Nina events that followed them in those datasets. This created the appearance of gradual rises in global SST and TLT anomalies.

Argument 2: Global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is responsible for the increase in the number of major El Nino events since 1975. (This argument is normally made by someone referring to an ENSO Index that starts in 1950.)

What The Instrument Temperature Record Shows: There are multidecadal variations in the frequency and magnitude of ENSO events. This can be seen by smoothing the NINO3.4 SST anomalies from 1870 to 2009 with a 121-month filter. Refer to Figure 13. During epochs when the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events outweigh the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events, global temperatures rise. And during epochs when the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events outweigh the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events, global temperatures drop.

http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
Figure 13

Argument 3: El Nino events don’t create heat.

What The Instrument Temperature Record Shows: During El Nino events, warm water that had been stored below the surface of the western tropical Pacific (in the Pacific Warm Pool) sloshes to the east and rises to the surface. Tropical Pacific SST anomalies increase in response. In this way, more heat than normal is released from the tropical Pacific to the atmosphere. But El Nino events not only release heat into the atmosphere, they also shift atmospheric circulation patterns (Hadley and Walker Circulation, surface winds, cloud cover). These shifts in the circulation patterns and cloud cover cause surface temperatures and OHC outside of the tropical Pacific to rise.

It is important to note that the vast majority of the warm water that sloshes east during the El Nino had been stored below the surface before the El Nino. While below the surface (to depths of 300 meters) it was not included in the instrument temperature record. But during the El Nino, that warm water has been relocated to the surface and is included in the surface temperature record. So, El Nino events relocate warm water from an area that was not included in the calculation of global temperature to the surface where it is included.

Argument 4: Climate models used by the IPCC reproduce these El Nino-induced step changes.

What The Climate Models Show: Most of the climate models (GCMs) used by the IPCC in AR4 for hindcasting 20th Century climate do not bother to model ENSO. Those that make the effort do not model it well. The frequency, magnitudes, linear trends, and multiyear aftereffects of those models do not match the surface temperature record. The step changes that exist in the instrument temperature record, which are the bases for the much of the rises in global temperatures, do not exist in the model outputs of the 20th century.

If and when GCMs can reproduce the past frequency and magnitude of ENSO events, if and when GCMs can reproduce the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events, which are these El Nino-induced step changes (including the ones that also appear in the OHC records), then GCMs may have some predictive value. At present they cannot reproduce ENSO or its multiyear aftereffects. At present they have no value.

This failure of GCMs to properly account for the multiyear impacts of major El Nino events (and other natural variables such as the North Atlantic Oscillation) can be seen in a graph of the actual rise in global OHC versus the projected rise forecast by GISS, Figure 14. The GCM used by GISS based its projection on the rise in Ocean Heat Content during the 1990s, assuming the trend would continue at that pace. But during the 1990s, the vast majority of the rise in OHC was caused by the combined effects of ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation, and these are natural variables that the GISS GCM did not model. Since 2003, Global Ocean Heat Content has been relatively flat, while the GISS projection reaches to unrealized levels.

http://i37.tinypic.com/i6xtnl.png
Figure 14

LINKS TO MORE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS

The upward step changes in the SST anomalies of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans were discussed in the following posts:
1.Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
2.Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 2
And I discussed the step changes in the Mid-To-High Latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere in the post RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots…Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone.

The erroneous assumption that the relationship between ENSO and global temperatures is linear was discussed in the following posts:
1.Multiple Wrongs Don’t Make A Right, Especially When It Comes To Determining The Impacts Of ENSO
2.Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear Aftereffects Of Significant El Nino Events
3.The Relationship Between ENSO And Global Surface Temperature Is Not Linear

This link discusses and illustrates that El Nino Events Are Not Getting Stronger.

The impacts of natural variables (ENSO and NAO) on Ocean Heat Content were discussed in the following posts:
1.ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data
2.North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables
3.NODC Corrections to Ocean Heat Content (0-700m) Part 2

Refer also to La Nina Events Are Not The Opposite Of El Nino Events.

The curious drop in cloud amount in 1995 and its possible impact on the 1997/98 El Nino is discussed further in Did A Decrease In Total Cloud Amount Fuel The 1997/98 El Nino?

LINK TO LEVITUS ET AL (2009)

I referred to the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems”. Here’s a link to the paper:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

PAPERS THAT PORTRAY A LINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENSO AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

In a good portion of this post, I’ve illustrated that the relationship between ENSO and global temperatures is not linear. The following is a list of papers that portray a linear relationship even though the instrument temperature record indicates otherwise. There are likely more of them in existence, and there will likely be more of them in the future.

Lean and Rind (2008), How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

Lean and Rind (2009), How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades? http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Lean_Rind.pdfSanter, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S., and Taylor K.E. (2001), Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Santer_etal.pdfThompson, D. W. J., J. J. Kennedy, J. M. Wallace, and P. D. Jones (2008), A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html
Thompson et al (2009), Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3089.1
Preprint Version:http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/TWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf
Trenberth, K.E., J.M.Caron, D.P.Stepaniak, and S.Worley, (2002), Evolution of El Nino-Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdfWigley, T. M. L. (2000), ENSO, volcanoes, and record-breaking temperatures
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/2000GL012159.shtml

SOURCES

OI.v2 SST data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

Sato Index data is available from GISS:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau_line.txt

The AMO data is available through the NOAA ESRL website:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data

The RSS TLT data is available here:http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt

HADISST data (Used in Figure 13) NODC OHC data and ISCCP Total Cloud Amount data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer website:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

The data for the North Atlantic SST Reconstruction is available through the NCDC’s World Data Center for Paleoclimatology:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/amo-gray2004.txt

For those who want to verify the outputs of the GCMs used by the IPCC, refer to the KNMI Climate Explorer webpage here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi?someone@somewhere

The video showing the climate research work of Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Steven McIntyre of Climate Audit is now up on YouTube. One of the most compelling portions of the program has to do with the erroneous reversal of the Tiljander sediments, and Dr. Michael Mann’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge his error, even though other authors of peer reviewed papers have done so. In my opinion, salvation of the hockey stick seems to trump the salvation of good science practice.

The investigative journalism here is refreshing, and well done. It’s the sort of thing CBS 60 minutes used to do.

Here is part 1, a transcript link follows:

McIntyre and Lindzen to appear on Finnish TV documentary – transcript

Update: Here’s a version with English Subtitles courtesy of commentor Apollo. ~ctm

http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

While we find cooling trends now in RSS and UAH global data from 2002, the US contiguous temperature record for 2009 seems to be returning to very near the normal baseline for temperature in the last century.

From World Climate Report: Another Normal Year for U.S. Temperatures?

Early last January, when the final 2008 numbers were in for the U.S. annual average temperature, we ran an article titled “U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?” in which we noted that “The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.”

2009 seems to be following in 2008’s footsteps.

The national average temperature had been elevated ever since the big 1998 El Niño, which was leading some folks to clamor that global warming was finally showing up in the U.S. temperature record. “Finally,” because prior to 1998, there was little sign that anything unusual was going on with U.S. average temperatures (Figure 1). The end of the record was hardly any different than any other portion of the record. The slight overall trend arose from a couple of cool decades at the start of the 20th century rather than any unusual warmth towards the end.

Figure 1. United States annual average temperature, 1895-1997 (data source: National Climate Data Center).

Then along came the 1998 El Niño, which raised both global and U.S. temperatures to record values, and our national temperatures remained elevated for 10 years thereafter (Figure 2). Instead of looking for some explanation of this unusual run of very warm years in the (naturally) changing patterns of atmospheric/ocean circulation in the Pacific Ocean, it was often chalked up to “global warming.”

Figure 2. United States annual average temperature, 1895-2007 (data source: National Climate Data Center).

But then something unexpected (by the global warming enthusiasts) happened in 2008—the U.S. annual average temperature returned to normal.

In reporting this in our World Climate Report article last January, we noted the drop in temperatures and wondered about the future:

But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.

Now, 10 months have passed and we are starting to get a good idea of how 2009 is shaping up temperature-wise for the U.S. We may be jumping the gun a little here, because there are still two months (17%) of data still outstanding, and November has started out pretty warm across the West, but, in any case, Figure 3 shows the national temperature history for the first 10 months of the year.

Figure 3. United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center).

Thus far, 2009 is looking like another normal year—further indication that the warm period from 1998-2007 was an anomaly, rather than a step change to a new climate across the U.S. (be sure to check back in two months to see how the final 2009 numbers pan out).

No wonder the U.S. Senate is slow to get behind the need for restricting our fossil fuel-related energy supply in the name of climate change.

Statistical Significance in Satellite Data

Guest post by Jeff Id of The Air Vent

If you’ve been following along here you probably suspected the difference between UAH and RSS are substantial enough to reach 95% significance. In this short post, you can see you were right. Significance is a measure of likelihood that the short term noise is creating the slope we see. Now since we’re looking at a difference between two series measuring the same thing, a simple reasonable method is to take the difference between the two series and look at the residuals for significance.

Global RSS and UAH temperature anomalies look like this.

By taking the difference between the two anomalies, the graph below is calculated. You can see that if 95 significance in trend is 0.0104 the trend of 0.027 is almost 3 times outside of what is created by noise in the data. Much of this was created by a well known and still contested step at 1992 which was a particularly difficult satellite transition point.

Now recently UAH and RSS started using different datasets for the first time. RSS continued using the old NOAA style satellites which decay in orbit over time while UAH switched to the AQUA station keeping satellite. The obital decay of NOAA-15 causes the instruments to measure different parts of earth at different times of day, gradually shifting over years. Imagine the difficulty in correcting temperature for all locations on earth based on time of day. You would need to quantify how the land, mountains, oceans, forests and even ice react over a day of heating. Each day being different over a year. RSS solved the problem with computer modeling of each grid square while UAH did it by measurement employing other satellites measuring at different times in the same day. I vastly prefer measurement to modeling in this case but that doesn’t mean RSS is wrong, just that there’s another black box step which is exceptionally difficult to verify.

The new AQUA satellite used in UAH has a station keeping thruster which keeps the measurement time of each gridcell constant for years at a time. The thing I think some miss about this is that the huge massive corrections which must be implemented over a day are suddenly the same correction value from day to day – no change. Therefore errors in corrections no longer create artificial trends. We’ve got our first high accuracy global trend measurement –ever. The record only extends from June 2002 though and RSS is already experiencing a large divergence over that time.

The last figure is UAH minus RSS for June 2002 until present. The data was re-anomalized after subtracting but the trend difference between the correct trend UAH and the old style calculation RSS is just past 95% significance.

RSS is showing too low of a trend over this timeframe. Dr. Christy mentioned that it’s a result of overcorrection for diurnal shift of the old style satellites orbit. Either way the UAH with the better quality trend since 2002 is below.

UAH negative trend nearly reached 95% significance. So of course we have to look at RSS.

RSS is cooling outside of 95% significance for the past 8ish years. That’s the first statistically significant cooling I’ve seen so far. A short check of RSS on an annual basis shows that in 1978 over an 8 year window the trend is significantly negative. This means that by RSS there is a 95% certainty that cooling is occurring outside of weather variation since 2002. Not that it’s that big of a big deal, but cooling is cooling right?

My opinion is that UAH is the superior metric still, remember though I’m just an aeronautical engineer and not an expert. As a side note I’ve got a beauty of a quote in a private email from a specialist saying that nobody outside of Alabama prefers UAH. I wonder if the fickle tides of science will be turning.

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Image: NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center

A recent study by Shindell et. al, entitled Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions, (Science Magazine, 30 October 2009, Vol. 326) reports on interactions between aerosols and methane and other greenhouse gases. It has been discussed on Watts Up With That here <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/31/an-idea-i-can-get-behind-regulate-methane-first/>, as well as on other blogs. The Shindell study gives new values for the “radiative forcing” of various greenhouse gases. The “radiative forcing” is the increase in greenhouse radiation which is due to the increases in greenhouse gases since 1750.

Rather than rehash those discussions, I’d like to point to a different aspect of the study which has not been discussed.

This is the question of uncertainty. The IPCC often gives values for things like the climate sensitivity, or the radiative forcing, as a value plus or minus an “uncertainty range”. This uncertainty range is the interval within which we can have a certain confidence that the actual value will fall. Giving an uncertainty range is a standard scientific method for putting bounds on what a value might actually be.

In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers of the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR), the IPCC explains this as follows:

In general, uncertainty ranges for results given in this Summary for Policymakers are 90% uncertainty intervals unless stated otherwise, i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range. Best estimates are given where available. Assessed uncertainty intervals are not always symmetric about the corresponding best estimate. Note that a number of uncertainty ranges in the Working Group I TAR corresponded to 2-sigma (95%), often using expert judgement.

Uncertainty is well defined mathematically. Given a range that represents say a 90% uncertainty interval, we can then calculate a 66% uncertainty interval, or a 99% uncertainty interval. This allows us to get a good idea of the range of values that we think a variable will be found within.

Now, what does uncertainty have to do with the Shindell study? Well, the Shindell study first recalculated the values for the radiative forcing of a variety of greenhouse gases using the standard methods. They found very similar results to those reported in the IPCC FAR. They call these the “abundance-based” values, as they are based solely on the abundance of the various gases.

Next, they calculated the radiative forcing including the interaction of the gases with aerosols. They call these the “emissions-based” values, as they are related to the interactions with other emissions of things like sulfates and nitrates. For methane, they found that the radiative forcing is much larger than was previously believed. Here are their results:

While Shindell et. al list the uncertainties in the text of the study, they do not display them on the chart. Let me remedy that omission:

Here’s the point: prior to this study, the IPCC was 99% certain that the radiative forcing from methane was between about 0.4 and 0.6. But this new study is now 99% certain that it is between 0.7 and 1.3 … which means that the uncertainty ranges of the earlier studies, or this study, or both, are way too small. They claim a certainty about their calculations that we simply do not have.

This is a recurring problem with the IPCC, and with climate science in general. They are very, very certain that they have the answers, certain enough that people say “the science is settled”. They are certain enough that people say we should spend billions and billions of dollars based on their conclusions.

But as you can see above, this certainty is false. Their claims are not valid, and their uncertainty ranges are … well … let me call them “incredibly optimistic” and let it go at that. The study of climate is a relatively new science. We have been attempting to model the climate for only a few decades. There is much that is not understood about the climate. And far from being “settled”, this study shows that the science is in a constant state of flux with new discoveries all the time. Not only are we not certain about the climate … we’re not even certain about the uncertainty surrounding the climate.

Transcript in English from the TV network website here (h/t to Goran Frojdh)

MOT: Climate catastrophe cancelled
Finnish Broadcasting Co. YLE, TV1, Nov 11th 2009 at 8.00 pm.

Voiceover (VO), reporter Martti Backman: Governments around the world are preparing for a grand climate conference, which should decide how humanity responds to the threat of a climate catastrophe. Negotiations are under way to replace the Kyoto treaty with a new treaty of Copenhagen.

VO: The threat is based on assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. According to the panel, the Earth is going through an unprecedented period of temperature increase, caused by man and his carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal and oil.

(Pictures from An Incovenient Truth)

The Earth’s climate has always been changing. But now we are told that warming is happening faster than ever. The view is based on this figure.

(Picture: The global warming hockey stick graph. Music: Electric organ sounds from an ice-hockey game)

VO: This ten-year-old figure, dubbed as the hockey stick, was meant to revolutionize the dominant view of global climate history. The stick’s handle stretches for almost a thousand years, creating an impression of a steady climate, and its’ rising blade in the late 1900’s is proof of sudden, strong warming, which is caused by man.

According to the older view, climate has naturally varied considerably over the past millennium, and in the middle ages it was clearly warmer than today. But in the hockey stick graph, the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age after it have disappeared. The hockey stick was promoted to honorary status in the IPCC’s third assessment report’s cover. It became the logo of catastrophic climate change. The stick was used to back up the claim that, 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium.

Steve McIntyre: ”At the time I was doing mining exploration business and I just wondered, in the most casual possible way, how they knew that. So that led me start looking at the data and six years later, I’m still doing it”.

VO: The Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre had doubts about the scientific strength of the hockey stick graph, and he decided to unravel the numbers behind it, with the diligence of an auditor. The father of the hockey stick, professor Michael Mann resisted McIntyre’s efforts to get hold of his research data, and it wasn’t until 2003 that McIntyre succeeded in getting access to the data.

McIntyre: ” It turned out that he had modified a principal components method incorrectly and the modified method produced hockey stick-shaped graphs ninety-nine percent of the time. It also emphasized a class of proxies, strip-bark bristlecone pines that previous authors had said were not actually a temperature proxy”.

VO: Temperature records measured by thermometers are at most 150 years long. Earlier histories have to be reconstructed with so-called proxies, or surrogate thermometers. Past climates are deduced for example from tree rings and lake sediments or varves.

The shape of the hockey stick was to a large extent caused by tree rings from a few North American bristlecone pines. McIntyre succeeded in deconstructing the stick. The United States National Academy of Sciences set up a committee to investigate his findings. The committee found that, McIntyre had been right to question the temperature reconstruction and announced that, bristlecone pines should no more be used as proof of climate change.

Steve McIntyre, an outsider in climate science, had succeeded in breaking Mann’s hockey stick, the icon of the climate change movement. But the story was not over. A whole factory started to produce new sticks to replace the broken one.

McIntyre: “There was another class of study, which used a series of tree rings from a scientist called Keith Briffa, from Northern Russia, from a site called Yamal, and this had an even bigger hockey stick-shape than the Michael Mann -hockey stick and this one – - has been used in multiple studies as well and so, over the past few years I’ve been trying to get information about how this particular series was constructed”.

VO: Keith Briffa is one of the big names in climate research. He is a professor in the IPCC’s scientific stronghold in Britain, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He is also a lead author of the past climate chapters of the IPCC’s assessment reports.

McIntyre had to fight for three years to get Briffa’s Yamal data under his microscope. But a lot happened before that.

The well-known medieval warmth was disturbing to the scientists close to the IPCC, the so-called hockey team. In the mid 1990’s the American geologist David Deming received an astonishing e-mail, in which one prominent climate researcher announced to his colleagues:

Actor’s voice: “We have to get rid of the medieval warm period.”

(Picture of Deming’s written statement from the Senate Environmental committee website)

VO: Deming testified about the e-mail at hearings in the United States congress.

Soon after this e-mail, Keith Briffa published a study, where the millennial temperature history looked like this: (the upper curve appears on screen)

VO: The Briffa study was based on a very limited number of tree ring samples from the so-called Polar Urals region in Siberia. With the help of just three short tree ring series he claimed that the year 1032 in the middle of the balmy middle ages, had been the coldest in the millennium. And the modern period appeared to be very warm. A real hockey stick.

A couple of years later, Briffa’s colleague returned to Siberia to drill new tree ring samples. When they were added to Briffa’s original data, the curve looked surprisingly like this: (lower curve appears on screen, the curves merge).

The hockey stick had disappeared, and the medieval warm period had been reinstated as warmer than the present.

McIntyre: “Unfortunately, this updated Polar Urals result was never published and Briffa, in his works since 2000, has made no – - reference to this updated study”.

VO: The updated Polar Urals series was forgotten. Instead, Briffa replaced his original weak Polar Urals data in 2000 with new tree ring series drilled from the Yamal peninsula hundreds of kilometers away. With this data, the climate reconstruction looks like this: (lower curve appears).

VO: The blade of the hockey stick rises at the end of the millennium stronger than ever and the medieval warm period is clearly shadowed by it, if not made to vanish completely.

Yamal data became the most important temperature proxy for all later hockey sticks, and it was used in at least seven temperature reconstruction studies.

But McIntyre knew something about the construction of hockey sticks, and he could not believe in the Yamal curve. The contradiction to established paleoclimatic knowledge was simply too big.

McIntyre: “And the question is just, why was the Polar Urals update not reported? And if the Yamal series was going to be used rather than Polar Urals, that should have been clearly explained to readers. The criteria for preferring one rather than the other should have been also clearly explained”.

VO: Finnish Lapland lies at the same latitudes as Yamal, and there are plenty of Finnish studies on past climates based on tree rings. These studies are considered to be among the best in the world, for their sample quality as well as methodologically. What kinds of hockey sticks have been found in them?

Kari Mielikäinen, professor of forest research (Metla, Finland): “We have this long series going back over 7,000 years, and there’s no hockey stick there.”

VO: Briffa’s Yamal hockey stick was published in the prestigious journal Science. McIntyre asked for a copy of the raw data from Yamal.

McIntyre: ”Briffa refused. The editors of Science refused to require Briffa to provide the measurement data…”

VO: It took McIntyre three years to get hold of the data, although one of the most important rules in science is that, raw data should be made available to anybody who is interested in checking and replicating a study.

Finally Briffa made a “mistake”. He published yet another article based on the Yamal data in a journal of the British Royal Society. The prestigious scientific society held on to the principle of data transparency and forced Briffa to make his raw data public. In September this year, the Canadian climate auditor had his forebodings confirmed.

McIntyre: ”So after, after sort of, three years of frustration and trying to examine the data that Briffa had used and probably four years of people saying that this data supported the Michael Mann -work on other grounds, it was really quite frustrating to find that it was built up on ten trees that had been not randomly selected”.

VO: So the Yamal data included only ten living trees from the 1990’s, and the rapid growth of these individuals caused the steep rise of the hockey stick blade. In Finnish dendrological studies, hardly anything would be said based on just ten trees. What’s demanded is at least 50 trees for each year, and several other quality criteria as well. How have these criteria been observed in the Yamal data?

Kari Mielikäinen (professor of forest research, Finnish Forest Research Institute Metla): “Rather weakly it seems. It looks like there are problems with both cohort structure and also the regional distribution (of the sample).”

VO: McIntyre conducted a simple statistical exercise. He replaced the 10-tree Yamal sample by a larger 34-tree sample collected from the same area. (In this figure) the added material is depicted with the black curve, and the combination of both data sets as a green curve.

VO: The hockey stick blade disappears, or actually turns downwards. And the medieval period is again warmer than the present.

McIntyre: ”I think that the preferential selection of Yamal, rather than Polar Urals, biases the result that’s presented to the public”.

VO: All good proxy-based climatic reconstructions should compare the results with adjacently located measurements from thermometers. When this is done in the Yamal area, it emerges that none of the near-by weather stations have recorded warming that would explain the hockey stick graph. In other words, if those ten trees have grown abnormally fast in the 1990’s it is due to something else than heat.

Mielikäinen: “If you choose one convenient series just to prove a point, be it a hockey stick or anything, you are definitely on a wrong track.”

VO: Problems with tree ring studies will be addressed next summer in an international scientific congress chaired by Mielikäinen in Rovaniemi (Finnish Lapland).

(pause)

VO: The author of the Yamal reconstruction, Keith Briffa, has disputed the criticism aimed at his study, but it still draws heated debate.

Briffa’s employer, the IPCC-affiliated climate research unit CRU maintains a global database of temperature measurements from weather stations. This database is central to the conclusion that global temperatures have risen to a worrying extent during the past 40 years. The CRU has combined thermometer readings into a global average with a method which it refuses to disclose, but which allegedly has brought added value to the raw data. McIntyre has requested the data from CRU director Phil Jones, but he has been turned down, and others as well.

McIntyre: “An Australian named Warwick Hughes had asked for the data and Warwick Hughes had published some articles that had been critical of how the temperature histories had been prepared, and Jones said ‘Why should I send – we have twenty-five years invested in this, why should I send the data to you when your only objective is to find anything wrong with it?”, which is a very unscientific statement.”

VO: The CRU database is the most important scientific justification for the demands that the most ambitious treaty in mankind’s history should be finalized in Copenhagen in December. In spite of this, there is no way to replicate its’ validity.

Recently the CRU director Phil Jones has announced that the original measurement data does not exist anymore because of data storage difficulties. A dog ate the world’s most important scientific measurement homework.

(Pause, move to Korttajärvi, central Finland.)

VO: Materials for the hockey stick factory have also been collected from Finland.

Reporter Backman, standing on a jetty: “This small Korttajärvi in Jyväskylä has become a focal point in the international climate debate. Based on samples taken from its’ bottom sediments, some foreign researchers claim that, an unprecedented warming occurred at the end of the 20th century. Finnish researchers, on the other hand, have used the lake to show that climate has always changed, even more than recently, and irrespective of human influence.”

VO: Five years ago, one of the Korttajärvi researchers responded to MOT’s question about the IPCC’s claim that recent temperatures are highest in a thousand years.

(Interview footage from MOT archive, 2004)

Ojala: “Based on these studies it seems that this claim is not quite true, at least for the Northern hemisphere, at least for Scandinavia. We’ve clearly had much warmer winters here in the Nautajärvi and Korttajärvi area, than what we are experiencing now.”

Question by Backman: “What’s your estimate, how much warmer was the medieval period in Finland, compared to the present?”

Ojala: “It is difficult to say exactly. But we may speak of half a degree (Celsius), even a whole degree based on several European studies.”

VO: At least two research teams close to the IPCC added the sediment data collected by Finnish researchers as part of their own paleoclimatic model reconstructions. This was done with agreement, but the Finns were surprised to see that in a study published this September, their data and interpretation of its’ meaning had been turned upside down. Here is the millennial temperature reconstruction from Korttajärvi done by the Finns:

VO: And here we have the same data presented by the hockey team:

VO: A nice hockey stick has emerged from the Korttajärvi mud. What in the Finnish study signified cold, had been turned into warmth in the IPCC science and vice versa. This interpretation passed the scientific peer review.

Dr. Atte Korhola, professor of environmental change at the University of Helsinki, is an expert in lake sediment studies.

Atte Korhola: “Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world’s most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science – or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often – that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem.”

VO: The author of the September study, Darrell Kaufman, admitted his mistake two weeks ago and sent a correction to the journal Science. But the main author of a previous study, Michael Mann, the father of the original hockey stick, still sticks to the claim that a hockey stick was found at the bottom of lake Korttajärvi.

(Pause)

VO: The climate studies used by the UN affiliated IPCC are usually computer simulations, based on models emulating the behavior of global climate. Some traditional researchers have criticized studies based on just computer simulations, calling it “playstation climatology”.

According to the most prominent computer models, human activity should cause global warming that looks like this:

(Graph showing rising projections to 2100.)

But the measurements show that, real temperature has so far varied like this:

(Graph showing land and satellite based measurements of global temperature until 2009 – clearly below the model simulations.)

VO: A poorly known fact is that, global climate stopped warming after a two-decade period (in the late 1900’s). Since 1998 there has been no statistically measured global warming. Instead, the climate has slightly cooled for several years. Not one of the climate models used by the IPCC was able to predict this turn of events.

Some new studies predict the cooling phase to continue longer, maybe for a couple of decades. In spite of that, many leading scientists affiliated with the IPCC still claim that global warming continues, even faster than predicted.

Meanwhile, some of the catastrophic consequences predicted by the models have been revealed as overblown. The Arctic sea ice has started to recover from its’ minimum area recorded two years ago, Antarctic melting has slowed down to a minimum during measured history, sea level rise has not accelerated from its’ previous rate, and hurricane seasons have been mild. Nature has not obeyed the manuscript.

Korhola: “In late summer 2008 I was in England, where all newspapers ran a front-page story about a scenario predicting the total disappearance of Arctic sea ice by that summer. And these predictions were distributed by two leading researchers of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, Mark Serreze and Jay Zwally. Well, what happened was that these predictions did not come true, but that 2008 was clearly a better year than 2007 with the collapse in ice extent, which was apparently caused by anomalous atmospheric pressure and wind conditions in the Arctic regions.”

VO: Richard Lindzen is a professor of climate science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technololy, one of the world’s most prestigious science universities. He is one of the few scientists who do not study climate by simulating it with computer models. He studies observations from the real natural world.

Richard Lindzen: “This field is completely sick in that way, I mean, you have models you know that they don’t work, you know they don’t reproduce a - phenomenon, but you bend data to fit the model. I don’t think this can go on for long without being embarrassing”.

VO: In September, Lindzen published a study that hit the core of the climate debate. Based on radiation measurements, he calculated how much the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration could really warm up the Earth.

The Earth is protected from cosmic freezing by the atmospheric gas blanket. According to the catastrophic warming theory, the CO2 emitted from burning oil and coal thickens the blanket and thus causes the temperature to rise dangerously.

An undisputed scientific fact is that, a doubling of CO2 in itself is enough to cause a one degree (Celsius) of atmospheric warming, which would not be a problem. But the climate models have been fed with the assumption that the warming caused by CO2 increased the concentration of water vapor, which in turn would further thicken the blanket and multiply the total warming a couple of times, up to a fateful six degrees.

Lindzen: “The models do exactly what they are supposed to, given their sensitivity. They all show the blanket thickens and it thickens by the amount consistent with the sensitivity of the models do of doubling of CO2. Do the same thing to nature, and it does exactly the opposite, and it does it more powerfully. So you have all the models agreeing with each other, and all of them wrong compared to nature.”

VO: The question of water vapor feedback is the key in determining the threat of a climate catastrophe. The climate models assume that, the higher the surface temperature rises, the thicker the warming blanket gets. But is this really happening?

Lindzen and his team compared sea-level temperatures with the satellite-based measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere. While all computer models show that, as the surface temperature rises, less radiation escapes to space:

(Graph of 11 model simulations with downward sloping lines)

VO: The reality measured from nature is exactly diametrical:

(The 12th diagram ‘ERBE’ by Lindzen added to the graph set, showing a rising curve)

VO: It turned out that, cloud cover changes as the surface warms, but it was not getting thicker; it was thinning. In this way, nature prevents the atmosphere from excessive heating. The cloud cover reacts to temperature changes like an eye’s iris to changes in light, by contracting or expanding. Lindzen calls this thermostatic behavior the Iris-effect.

And what is the significance of this effect to the estimates of human-caused climatic warming?

Lindzen: “It’s saying that, instead of the one degree being magnified, it should be shrunk by at least a half.”

Question by Backman: “And how much would this sensitivity be in degrees of Celsius?”

Lindzen: “Now, in terms of degrees of Celsius it says that we shall expect doubling the CO2 might contribute in the order of half a degree to the global mean temperature anomaly.”

Backman: “And how big a problem is that?”

Lindzen: “None. We see that from month to month, year to year all the time. I mean the truth is, we have seen already two thirds, three quarters of a degree. This is not the period when the world is falling apart. It’s a period when the population has grown, when famine has been defeated, when people live longer than ever and there is large number of people that are supposedly terribly warming the earth, are living better for the most part.”

VO: Lindzen’s study shows with measurements that the assumption of an impending climate catastrophe is basically wrong. The IPCC camp has reacted to the study with complege silence.

Lindzen: “I think it’s because it’s so simple and obvious, and I think even the alarmist groups know that the better part of wisdom is not to publicize this.”

VO: Professor Atte Kohola is not skeptical of the potential threat of climatic warming like his colleague in Boston, but both scientists are worried about the politicizion of climate science.

Korhola: “Especially now with the Copenhagen conference approaching, one gets the impression that also among scientists, many have lost control. Especially when you compare original studies to how they are presented to the public, in the mass media, there is a huge gap in what comes out. We get a lot of material with terms like dramatic, catastrophic, unprecedented, and among some researchers there is even talk of planetary doom and saving the planet.”

Lindzen: “The real question is, why the last few years have seen this huge boost with all these crazy movies – “Inconvenient truth” – nonsense spewed out, hysteria? We are all going to die, if we don’t change our light bulbs immediately. I can only say, somebody must have noticed that the temperature has stopped increasing and they had all these agendas by now to make billions of dollars, and do this and do that, get people to pay taxes and feel happy about it, because they are saving the earth and so on. So you have the politicians, the bureaucrats, the scientists and so on, and all felt you know that if the temperature continues this way, this is finished if we don’t get it through immediately so the volume has increased.”

VO: MOT asked for an interview with the director of the Finnish meteorological institute, Dr. Petteri Taalas, who is sympathetic to the IPCC’s main line. He refused.

UPDATE: VIDEO NOW ONLINE

Lindzen and McIntyre’s Finnish TV interview – issues that US journalists fail to investigate

The ENVI line can be seen here. This is rather sad really, I like electric cars. I drive one myself. From Reuters:

Chrysler dismantles electric car plans under Fiat

The Chrysler ENVI line of electric vehicles - dropped

By Kevin Krolicki

DETROIT (Reuters) – Chrysler has disbanded a team of engineers dedicated to rushing a range of electric vehicles to showrooms and dropped ambitious sales targets for battery-powered cars set as it was sliding toward bankruptcy and seeking government aid.

The move by Fiat SpA marks a major reversal for Chrysler, which had used its electric car program as part of the case for a $12.5 billion federal aid package.

As late as August, Chrysler took $70 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a test fleet of 220 hybrid pickup trucks and minivans, vehicles now scrapped in the sweeping turnaround plan for Chrysler announced this week by Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne.

Chrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said on Friday that an in-house team of electric car development engineers had been disbanded in favor of a more traditional organization.

The automaker’s former owner, Cerberus Capital Management, had set up a special division called “Envi” — derived from Environment — to spearhead development of hybrid technology where Chrysler badly trailed competitors.

“Envi is absorbed into the normal vehicle development program,” Cappa told Reuters.

Under mounting pressure to improve the fuel-efficiency of its line-up, Chrysler announced in September last year that it was developing three electric vehicles and would sell the first of the models by 2010.

In January at the Detroit Auto Show, Chrysler upped the ante on its electric car bet by pledging to have 500,000 battery-powered vehicles on the road by 2013, including sports cars and trucks.

But a presentation of Chrysler’s five-year strategy by Marchionne on Wednesday made no mention of Chrysler’s earlier electric car development plans.

Under the Marchionne plan, former Envi chief Lou Rhodes will become the group line executive in charge of electric car development for both Fiat and Chrysler, Cappa said.

As of Friday, the Chrysler Group website still featured pictures and advertisements for the now-scuttled electric vehicles it had been developing.

Here: https://www.chryslergroupllc.com/innovation/envi

That includes the Dodge Circuit, a two-seat, all-electric sports car that Chrysler engineers had rushed into prototype by using a Lotus platform.

At the time of the launch of Envi in late 2007, Chrysler executives had said the unit would operate with the speed of a venture capital-backed start-up that would compress the three-to-five-year development cycle typical for automakers.

Read the complete article here

Excerpts from Reuters story: EPA C02 endangerment finding to White House

By Tom Doggett

Image: National Park Service

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

…

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.

…

She said the EPA received more than 300,000 comments on its initial proposed public health endangerment and vehicle pollution findings that were issued last April.

Complete story here

Guest post by Erl Happ

Solar Powered Stirling Cycle Engine

What follows is a general theory of natural climate variation supported by observation of the changing temperature of the atmosphere and the sea between 1948 and September 2009. This work suggests that strong warming after 1978 is an entirely natural phenomenon.

Imagine a small planet about the size of the Earth orbiting a sun just like our own. The planet has an atmosphere composed of nitrogen (76%), oxygen (23%) and trace gases (1%) of which argon makes up half of that one percent.

Let us further imagine that the sun bombards the Earth with radiation so energetic as to destroy the integrity of nitrogen and oxygen in the planet’s upper atmosphere. The region where this occurs may be called the ‘ionosphere’. When superheated at the highest elevations it can be known as the ‘thermosphere’.  The electrically unbalanced particles of the ionosphere possess negative or a positive polarity. Like iron filings scattered across a piece of paper atop a magnetized iron bar, atmospheric ions orient themselves according to the lines of the planets magnetic field. Rotating with the planet, the ionosphere is a place of constant flux.  Particles are energized on the dayside and dragged into a long tail on the night-side by the pressure of the solar wind, a highly magnetized stream of helium and hydrogen emanating from the sun. There is an exchange of energy between the wind and the ionosphere and particles are accelerated in one direction or the other and re-distributed according to the tension imposed by the constantly changing electromagnetic medium.

As ionized particles radiate energy and cool they will join up with particles of opposite polarity. The junction of one with the other moves the union closer to a ‘neutral’ state.  The orgy of irradiation, excitement, and reorientation, begins anew each day as the sun appears above the horizon. Recombination occurs mainly at night.

Nitrogen requires the most energetic short wave radiation to achieve the ionic state. This energy is available at a higher altitude. Oxygen ions are scarce at altitudes where nitrogen ions are formed because when the music stops, ions of nitrogen grab oxygen partners just as happily as nitrogen partners and there are many more nitrogen partners than oxygen partners.

Where free oxygen ions exist, they do so at a lower level where there is insufficient very short wave radiation to ionize nitrogen.

So, we have two regions of an ionosphere, the lower oxygen rich and the upper oxygen poor and nitrogen rich, ‘ionically’ speaking.

Ions of oxygen will hold hands in groups of three in a molecule called ozone. Although this happens only to a limited extent, it nevertheless creates an ozone rich layer. We call it the stratosphere.

The cumbersome ozone molecule has an ability to trap the relatively long wave radiation of the planet and also some radiation from the sun at the long end of the short wave spectrum.  Consequently this ozone rich layer is warmer than the atmosphere above and below it.

The depth of the atmosphere beneath the ozone rich layer is, in the context of the size of the earth, hardly skin deep (only 10Km at mid latitudes and 15Km at the equator) but nevertheless sufficient to effectively cool the Earth. In dry air the lapse rate is 10°C per kilometer. The upper troposphere is very much colder than the surface of the planet. So we must (reluctantly perhaps) conclude that the atmosphere is a very effective vent for surface heat.

Though about three quarters of the atmosphere is below the stratosphere and free of the influence of an electromagnetic field, the remaining portion of the atmosphere is very much under its influence. That part is much more than half of one percent, the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The tropical troposphere tends to lose energy by decompression associated with uplift whereas the subtropical latitudes is a place of descending, compressing air where long wave radiation is the chief means of energy removal. Where decompression is vigorous, the upper troposphere cools to minus 85°C. Elsewhere it reaches a temperature of about minus 55°C. As the equatorial region has warmed the quantum of long wave radiation from the near equatorial zone has diminished while in the subtropics where the air is descending, it has increased.

The surface of the planet is 70% water and the atmosphere near the surface is water vapor rich. Because the air at 1000 meters elevation is already between 6 and 10°C cooler than the surface, clouds of moisture form in rising air. At an elevation of two to four kilometers condensing moisture forms, not water droplets, but ice crystals of many and varied patterns and considerable surface area. Ice crystals populate the atmosphere at a density so low as to make them virtually invisible. But, the ice crystal zone stretches from about 2km to 25km in elevation and it is therefore very much deeper and potentially more reflective than the water droplet zone.

Sensibly therefore, we might expect the temperature at the surface of the planet to relate strongly to the extent of ice crystal formation. Since the upper atmosphere tends to have much the same level of moisture all the time, the population of ice crystals varies inversely with air temperature.

How could the temperature of the ice cloud region change?

The concentration of ozone in the stratosphere and upper troposphere depends upon the rate of mixing of oxygen hungry, mesospheric nitrogen ions into the stratosphere. Where does this mixing occur?

Most of the land is in the northern hemisphere but there is none at the northern pole. Strangely there is a massive landmass at the southern pole. Here the surface is very cold all the year round and particularly so in winter.

The temperature of the Antarctic ice mound is always below the freezing point of water. Any precipitation that falls upon it is trapped. Ice surface area doubles in winter by virtue of the freezing of the sea on its margin. A downdraft is present at all times and it is particularly powerful in winter.

The circulation of the atmosphere is driven by differences in surface temperature and the release of latent heat giving rise to columns of rising air particularly over the tropical rain forests. Air descends over the cold oceans in the subtropics and also over the Polar Regions especially in their winter season when the pole is dark and the surface is at its coldest.

The column of descending air over the Antarctic continent stretches into the mesosphere.

Because nitrogen from the mesosphere enters the stratosphere primarily over the Antarctic continent there is less ozone in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere. But when the downward flow of air within the vortex stalls, ozone builds up throughout the stratosphere and to a more limited but very influential extent in the upper troposphere. The mixing rate of ozone into the upper troposphere varies with latitude.

As the ozone content of the ice cloud region rises, so does its temperature. This depletes ice cloud allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface.

Can a reorientation in the direction, mass density or speed of the ‘solar wind’ or perhaps a change in the intensity of ionizing radiation or a change in the Earth’s magnetic field or a mix of all three shift air from high to low latitudes, lowering surface pressure there and raising it somewhere else? Unambiguously, the answer is yes. There is no process internal to the Earth itself that could account for this shift in the atmosphere. It depends wholly upon the magnetic fields in the ionosphere and the exchange of energy between the solar wind and the ionized atmsophere. So, the distribution of the atmosphere by latitude is determined by the sun and the earth together.

Figure 1 shows the loss of atmospheric pressure at 70-90° south latitude after 1948. Most of the depletion occurred before 1976. However, the forces that created this changed state have continued to maintain it.  Not only can the atmosphere move, it can be held in position by the electromagnetic force and it will stay in place until that force relaxes.

Figure 1

Change in surface atmsopheric pressure

Where and when did surface pressure change?

Figure 2 compares the period of global warming after 1977 to the period of relatively stable or cooling temperature prior to 1977. After 1977 we see much lower pressure in winter and spring with the loss of pressure increasing with latitude between 40° and 90° south latitude.

Between the equator and 30° south latitude surface atmospheric pressure has increased. At 40-50° south, which may be a transition zone, surface pressure increased in summer and fell in winter with greatest loss in September. Very similar dynamics manifest at 30-40° south but by and large this latitude has been once of increasing atmospheric pressure.

Figure 2

Looking now at the northern hemisphere as represented in figure 3, we observe a loss of pressure in the winter months at high latitudes with losses also in June, August and September. However, the loss of pressure is no more than 1mb, much less than in the southern hemisphere where pressure fell by 2 to 8mb south of 50° south latitude.

After 1977 atmospheric pressure increased in mid year between the equator and 50° north latitude. There is obviously a tendency for pressure to increase at high latitudes in the northern summer at the same time as pressure falls in the southern hemisphere. This represents an atmospheric shift from high latitudes of the southern hemisphere into the entirety of the northern hemisphere in northern summer. This should tend to increase northern vortex activity in the wing months of the northern winter.

Peak months for loss of pressure in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere are November through to February. At this time pressure rises at 40-50° south latitude (aqua line in figure 2). This represents an atmospheric shift from the northern to the southern hemisphere in northern winter. However, there is another contributing factor. It is probable that the Arctic vortex suffers from competitive downdraft activity over the very cold Siberian and North American land masses. It is noticeable that pressure loss in midwinter is greater at 60-70°N (olive green) than at 80-90°N (red).

The ‘Arctic Oscillation Index’ records change in the relationship between surface pressure close to the northern pole and that at mid latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Change in the index goes along with change in the nature of western European weather.  It is apparent that there are complex influences driving the Arctic Oscillation and paradoxically the most important of these influences is the state of the competing downdrafts over Antarctica, continental Asia and North America. But in physical terms, the real driving force is electromagnetic.

Figure 3

The relationship between pressure and surface temperature in the tropics

Figure 4 shows the relationship between atmospheric pressure near the equator and sea surface temperature at 20° north to 20° south globally. Warming of the tropics goes hand in hand with increased surface atmospheric pressure. This is a key understanding. It is counter-intuitive because hot air is less dense and will rise in the middle of a low pressure area. But here we have hot air under increased pressure. We are accustomed to observing high pressure air that is associated with subsidence and cloud free skies in the subtropics. This is different. This pressure regime is determined by a shift in the atmosphere from high to low latitudes.

The relationship between these variables is mediated by the change in atmospheric moisture levels. An illustration of this relationship is the failure of the tropics to warm when pressure increased in the year 1999-2000. The precipitation event that followed the marked increase in atmospheric moisture during the El Nino event of 1997-8 created its own momentum (increased atmospheric moisture and cloud cover) and overwhelmed the possibility of a response to the increase in pressure a year later, itself a response to electromagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere. If one appreciates this, we can dispense with the usual statistical tests, proceeding according to logic and the eye. Many a baby has been thrown out with the bathwater after the application of an inappropriate statistical test.

Figure 4

We know that El Nino activity in the Pacific is accompanied by a slackening of the Trades as the pressure difference between the south east Pacific (high pressure) and Indonesia (low pressure) falls away. Figure 5shows that, when pressure rises in the Indonesian region, it falls very strongly in the waters off the coast of Chile. The weakening of the trade winds is a marker for El Nino activity in the Pacific. The change in pressure relations driving the trade winds is due to the movement of the atmosphere. That movement has its origin in electromagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere.

A glance at figure 5 reveals that the globe cools when surface atmospheric pressure in the Indonesian region falls below its long term mean.  There is much greater activity in terms of pressure change in the waters off Chile than in the Indonesian theatre.  Change in Chilean waters appears to precede change in Indonesia.

A shift in the atmosphere from high to low latitudes increases pressure at 30-40° south latitude. However, in the waters off Chile, we see a loss of pressure as pressure builds at the equator and this is particularly noticeable in March and September when geomagnetic activity peaks due to the favorable orientation of the Earth to the sun at the equinoxes. Surface pressure off Chile at 30-40° south behaves atypically for the latitude. It moves with polar pressure rather than low latitude pressure. This makes the Pacific particularly susceptible to influence from shifts in the atmosphere.

Figure 5

Figure 6 shows that when atmospheric pressure falls off Chile (in figure 6 pressure is inverted so that a rise in the pressure line actually represents falling pressure) sea surface temperature in the intake region for Nino 1 and Nino 2 warms. An increase in the temperature of tropical waters follows as a matter of course. The thing that controls the atmospheric pressure controls the temperature of tropical waters and ultimately the globe. That ‘thing’ is the electromagnetic force in the upper atmosphere. The change in surface temperature is due to a change in the ratio between radiation received at the limits of the atmosphere (almost a constant) and radiation reflected by ice crystals. Variation in reflection is responsible for change in the intensity of radiation received at the surface.

Figure 6

The temperature of the polar stratosphere increases at the time of the year when atmospheric pressure falls.

Figure 7 indicates a marked increase in stratospheric temperature at 10hPa post 1977 that is coincident with the fall in atmospheric pressure illustrated in figure 2.

There can be no shadow of doubt that the increase in the temperature of the upper stratosphere over Antarctica is associated with falling atmospheric pressure, the collapse of the vortex and a diminution of the flow of mesospheric nitrogen ions into the stratosphere. This allows an increase in ozone concentration which accounts for the increase in temperature both in the stratosphere and at the surface.

Ozone absorbs long wave radiation from the earth and UVB from the sun and this energy is rapidly transmitted to adjacent molecules. The upper atmosphere warms and as ice crystal population falls in southern winter and spring, the temperature of the sea increases in the intake zones for the equatorial currents. In the Pacific this is called El Nino. The conventional explanation of this warming is at odds with reality. Most of the warming activity occurs outside the tropics. It is most pronounced in late winter and spring in the southern hemisphere and it is patently a phenomenon that shows up with greater intensity after the climate shift of 1978. Indeed, the increased frequency and intensity of southern hemisphere warming in spring lies at the heart of the warming of the globe after 1978.

Figure 7

Figure 8 shows that the warming of the northern stratosphere at 10hpa in the middle of northern winter is insignificant if compared to the warming of the southern stratosphere. Stratospheric warming and cooling is just as lopsided as the distribution of the land between the hemispheres.

Some observers attribute sudden stratospheric warming in the polar night to ‘planetary waves’. But planetary waves are more evident in the northern than the southern hemisphere. These observers  maintain that the Earthly climate system is free of external influences.  Copernicus feared the response of the keepers of the conventional wisdom when he suggested that the sun was at the centre of the solar system rather than the Earth. He kept his opinions to himself until his theories were published close to his death in 1543. Galileo supported the Copernican viewpoint in a forthright fashion in 1632, was tried by his peers in the ‘Inquisition’ and spent the rest of his life in detention.  Geo-centrism is alive and well to this day and it thrives in the field of climate science. Trial by ones peers can be a harrowing affair. As Galileo would no doubt observe, if he were here to tell us:  ‘Most of them are a bunch of ignorant ******.

Figure 8

The extent of warming of the polar stratosphere in winter increases with elevation

Figure 9 reveals that temperature gain in the Antarctic stratosphere after 1977 increases with elevation. This is in conformity with the notion that a mesospheric influence on stratospheric ozone is the driver of stratospheric temperature at the poles and it acts via a variation in vortex activity brought on by change in the weight of the atmospheric column as expressed in changing surface pressure.

Figure 9

Figure 10, relating to the northern hemisphere shows temperature gain increasing with altitude as is the case in the southern hemisphere. Peak temperature gain is in February when surface pressure loss after 1977 is maximal (see figure 3).

Figure 10

Figure 11 shows the relationship between surface atmospheric pressure in the tropics and the aa index of geomagnetic activity. Anomalies are calculated with respect to mean monthly data for the period 1948-2009. The trend lines are third order polynomials selected for best fit.  It appears that this cycle may be about 80 years from trough to trough. A cycle of about this length has been called the Gleissburg cycle. The currently falling pressure at the equator heralds cooling. A simple projection of trend indicates perhaps thirty years of cooling ahead.

In considering figure 11 one must bear in mind that the atmosphere must first be ionized before it comes under the influence of the solar wind. We know little about the cycles in very short wave ionizing radiation. Nor, it seems do we know much about the driving force behind the change in the Earth’s magnetic field. The electromagnetic movement of the atmosphere is a multi-factorial phenomenon. Figure 11 deals with a single contributing factor and compares its oscillation with surface pressure near the equator. The field of change is much wider than the equator. The dynamics of pressure change are driven by many factors including the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the distribution of the land and the sea, the variation in the temperature of the sea at the same latitude, variations in the magnetic emanations from the Sun and variations in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field from place to place. At times surface pressure at both poles moves in the same direction and at other times pressure increases at one pole and decreases at the other. The atmosphere behaves quite differently when the earth is warm to when it is cool. The pressure systems move at quite different latitudes along with the jet stream.

Accordingly, one cannot say that geomagnetic activity drives surface temperature. It contributes as one element of a complex matrix in a constantly changing climate system. Do the climate modelers realize this?

Figure 11

Figure 12 is astonishing in its symmetry.  Prior to 1977 peak anomalies in 30hpa temperature at 80-90°S latitude occurred in April-May. After 1977 peak anomalies occur in October.  After 1977 October anomalies are as strongly positive as they were negative prior to 1977. This change relates directly to the warming of the southern oceans in southern winter-spring that is expressed in El Nino activity in the Pacific. But the Pacific is only one of the theatres of action in the global tropics. All theatres of action are affected by change in atmospheric pressure in Antarctica.

Figure 12

Figure 13 shows 30hpa temperature anomalies at 80-90°north in the Arctic. Again the symmetry is astonishing. Let there be no mistake. Here is evidence that the climate system is alternating between two very different modes of activity. One is a cooling mode and the other a warming mode. Temperature anomalies are positive only for a period of time, and they move to the  negative. When October anomalies are positive in Antarctica they are negative in the Arctic and vice versa.

Figure 13

Consequences of the warming mode of 1977-2009 for the temperature in the ice cloud zone of the upper troposphere

Figure 14 shows the character of the warming mode that prevailed after 1977 in the northern upper troposphere at 200hPa. There is sufficient ozone at this level for temperature to be driven by vortex phenomena rather than surface phenomena. At 200hPa, temperature change seems to be an amplified version of what happens at the surface. Of course this is nonsense. Changes at the surface reflect in miniature the more exaggerated and independently determined change that occurs above. But I diverge, and must return to the narrative.

In relation to the northern hemisphere: After 1977, at latitudes greater than 50° north, the upper troposphere warmed slightly in summer between June and November but is actually cooler during the winter months.  At low latitudes the troposphere is warmer all year but particularly so in northern winter. I hope some greenhouse theorists read this. Perhaps they can explain how the upper troposphere can warm when outgoing long wave radiation is at its annual minimum.

Figure 14

Figure 15 illustrates the dramatic influence of the warm mode on temperature in the southern hemisphere upper troposphere. Strong warming occurs between 20 and 70° south latitude. Peak warming occurs about the time of the equinoxes when the coupling of the solar wind with the Earth’s atmosphere is strongest.

When the polar vortex stalls, it allows ozone levels to rise at high altitudes above the pole. A strong peak in 200hpa temperature occurs in September at 80-90° south latitude and this peak appears at mid latitudes within a month, testifying to the speedy rate of mixing of ozone into the upper troposphere at 200hpa.

Figure 15

Surface temperature follows the lead of the stratosphere via change in ice cloud density

Figure 16 shows the relationship between the 20hpa temperature anomaly at 10° north to 10° south latitude on the one hand and  sea surface temperature in the in-feed zone in the south east Pacific near Chile on the other. The obvious way that the stratosphere and upper troposphere can affect surface temperature is via change in ice cloud density affecting the reflectivity of the atmosphere. An increase in temperature reduces ice cloud density allowing more radiation to reach the surface.

High amplitude variation in 20hPa temperature is seen between 1950 and 1976 when geomagnetic activity, stratospheric and surface temperature was depressed. This phenomenon might be interpreted this way: When stratospheric temperature is low due to low ozone content (high surface pressure at the pole and strong vortex) a small reduction in the inflow of nitrogen ions from the mesosphere can produce a large change in ozone and 20hpa temperature. The law of diminishing returns applies.  In periods where ozone levels are already high (low atmospheric pressure and collapsed vortex), the extent of change in 20hpa temperature from further collapse in the vortex is small.

After the year 2000 the flux in 20hpa temperature is large as it was during the cooling period prior to 1977.

Sea surface temperature in the south east Pacific follows 20hpa temperature with more fidelity and vigour after 1978 when change in southern hemisphere 200hpa temperature became the dominant mode of ENSO variation. Patently, the heating trend between 1977 and 2000 is due to a marked increase in the temperature of the ice cloud zone.

Figure 16

Figure 17 shows the relationship between 200 hPa (upper troposphere ice cloud zone) temperature and sea surface temperature at 40-50° north.

When the upper troposphere warms strongly, relative humidity must fall and the surface temperature response to high amplitude change in upper troposphere temperature then lacks coherence and vigour. Compare the cooling period after 1998 with the warming period ten years earlier. This observation suggests there is little increase in atmospheric moisture content as the troposphere warms. Moisture content, if it increases at all, lags the temperature increase. There is no amplifier here for a greenhouse effect.

Figure 17

Figure 18 shows the increase in surface pressure that accompanies warming at 40-50° north latitude.  The increase in pressure relates to falling pressure at the poles and an increase in the temperature of the stratosphere as ozone content builds.

Figure 18

Figure 19 shows the repeating pattern of positive anomalies in 20hpa temperature in southern spring  at 70-90° south and the frequent symmetry in the rise in sea surface temperature at 40-50° north. The relationship between these two variables will never be absolutely deterministic because of the other influences that impinge. Firstly, there is the independent activity in the northern vortex as it becomes more or less active leading into northern winter. Secondly, the flux in high altitude specific humidity determines the response rate. Thirdly, the atmosphere is never homogeneous consisting as it does of a series of traveling pressure cells responding to forces that move them as a band either towards or away from the poles.

Repeating positive anomalies in southern spring is the essence of the change that occurred in the climate system after 1978. When these anomalies disappear, the earth will cool. This can only happen as the atmospheric shift away from Antarctica goes into reverse.

Figure 19

There is great interest in the driver of sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. Enormous  store is put in the notion that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is capable of influencing global temperatures and potentially reversing the trend in global warming. However, the actual forces determining sea surface and global temperature lie in the upper atmosphere rather than in the oceans themselves. There is no mystery as to where warm water appears or does not appear. It is always at the surface and it is always dissipating into the atmosphere via evaporative transfer, surface contact and radiation. There is only one thing that can warm the surface of the sea on a large scale and that is solar radiation.

The temperature of the southern stratosphere increased much more than the northern stratosphere after 1977

In line with the dominance of the southern vortex in determining stratospheric temperature we would expect a strong increase in temperature in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere over the period of study. Figure 20 shows a 12 month moving average of 30hpa temperature in selected latitude bands of the southern hemisphere. It is apparent that the last great rise in 30hpa temperature at 80-90° south occurred just prior to the climate shift of 1978. Can planetary wave theorists explain this warming of the stratosphere above Antarctica at this time?

What theory explains why the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere have warmed so strongly while in low latitudes the stratosphere has cooled? Changes in gas composition will not suffice. Planetary waves will not suffice.

As the atmosphere shifts to mid and low latitudes the zone of heaviest ozone concentration in the stratosphere moves a little further away from the earth. This produces cooling. There has been a continuous fall in 30hpa temperature at 0-10° south latitude over the period. This may be due in part to the reduction in outgoing long wave radiation as cooling via decompression has become more important close to the equator. But, between 20° and 40° south the cooling of the stratosphere is likely related to the local thickening of the atmosphere.

Figure 20

Figure 21 shows that, as the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere has ‘thickened’, due to the atmospheric shift, 30hpa temperature has declined slightly at all latitudes. This has nothing to do with greenhouse gas activity in the troposphere. Greenhouse theorists who maintain that the stratosphere cools while the troposphere increases in temperature may care to comment on the rise in the temperature of the rctic stratosphere between 1948 and 1978!

Figure 21

Two climate modes

“Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. The sun is much too sultry and one must avoid its ultry violet rays”. Noel Coward 1932.

Perhaps Noel Coward’s observation is particularly pertinent in the southern hemispherewhere there is less ozone to absorb UVB. During the warming mode, protective ice crystals evaporate, allowing the surface to warm. Most of the warming activity post 1978 has been in the southern hemisphere in late winter and spring. This warming activity is plainly driven by shifts in atmospheric pressure affecting vortex activity.

The warming mode:

1. There is a shift of the atmosphere from the poles towards mid and low latitudes under electromagnetic forcing of ionized air.
2. Weakening of the polar vortexes curtails the flow of ionized nitrogen into the upper stratosphere allowing the survival of oxygen ions and increased ozone formation.
3. Intermixing of ozone into the upper troposphere raises temperature in the ice cloud zone. Ice crystals evaporate.
4. More solar radiation reaches the surface which warms.
5. In the southern hemisphere 200hpa temperature rises much more than in the northern hemisphere exhibiting strong equinoctial maxima.
6. Peak anomalies in stratospheric temperature occur in September-October rather than March.
7. A southern spring deficit in ice cloud density promotes warming across all southern latitudes which promotes the El Nino pattern of sea surface temperature at the equator.

The Cooling Mode

1. Surface atmospheric pressure increases at the poles as the electromagnetic force in the ionosphere/thermosphere relaxes.  This happens at solar minimum as the quantum of ionizing radiation falls to its lowest levels. It also tends to happen at solar maximum as the suns magnetic polarity reverses and magnetic fields emanating from the sun tend to be self cancelling. The manifestation in the Pacific Ocean is La Nina cooling.
2. Strengthening of the polar vortexes introduces ionized nitrogen into the stratosphere reducing the population of oxygen ions and ozone.
3. A loss of ozone in the ice cloud zone reduces temperature enhancing the formation of reflective ice crystals.
4. Less solar radiation reaches the surface which cools.
5. A generally low ozone level in the stratosphere results in high amplitude change in stratospheric temperature during the ENSO cycle. This is expressed in high amplitude variation in 20hpa temperature at the equator. At the surface the swing from El Nino warming to La Nina cooling is more violent and extreme.
6. Change is more extreme in the southern hemisphere where the polar vortex is generally cooler especially at the highest altitudes. In the cool mode stratospheric temperature exhibits a March maximum probably in line with enhancement of orbital rather than geomagnetic influences on stratospheric temperature. The earth is closest to the sun in January.
7. A cooler stratosphere and upper troposphere in southern spring promotes ice cloud formation reducing the flux of solar radiation to the surface establishing a La Nina dominant regime in the Pacific Ocean.

The pattern of change from the cool to the warm mode and back again is well expressed in figure 22 showing the pattern of change of the (Darwin –Tahiti) Southern Oscillation Index when compartmentalized according to solar cycle time intervals. A fall in this index represents warming. A dramatic fall in the index occurred about 1978. With the end of solar cycle 23 the globe is emerging from the strongest period of warming in the period of the instrumental record. The Southern Oscillation Index, based on barometric pressure, is not affected by the distortions present in the temperature record.

Figure 22

The smoking gun for natural climate variation is an increase in the temperature of the southern stratosphere and troposphere increasing with latitude all the way to the southern pole with a marked variation in southern hemisphere temperature in winter/spring between cool and warm episodes. This determines the strength of El Nino warming events across the tropics.

The smoking gun for greenhouse effects should be a generalized warming at all latitudes without any marked seasonal bias. If there were to be a seasonal bias it should be present as an increase in temperature above the norm when outgoing long wave radiation is maximal in the summer season. There should be no great difference between the hemispheres. That is far from what is actually observed. The evidence suggests that natural variation rather than anthropogenic influences drives climate change.

Conclusion

Between 1948 and 1976 the tropics and the globe as a whole was fairly stable in temperature with obvious cooling discernable in the decade prior to 1976. From 1977 through to 2000 the tropics and the globe warmed. By comparing data from the earlier period with that for the later period one can discern change in the atmosphere that resulted in more solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth causing it to warm.

Atmospheric conditions in the near earth environment are strongly influenced by the sun. The observed warming of the last decades of the twentieth century can be attributed to natural influences. There is no evidence of any warming signature due to the increased presence of so called ‘greenhouses gases’. It is suggested that the greenhouse hypothesis takes little cognizance of the manner in which the atmosphere actually functions. The atmosphere cools the planet but a change in its temperature causes a change in ice crystal density and the quantum of radiation reaching the surface.

Climatic models suggest that any greenhouse effect should be strongest in the tropical upper troposphere where water vapor is in higher concentration. In point of fact warming of the upper troposphere at the equator is less likely as the globe warms because the quantum of outgoing radiation diminishes as convection and de-compressive cooling is enhanced. It is in the subtropics that outgoing long wave radiation increases and in particular in the high pressure cells where the air is descending and warming and the sky tends to be cloud -free both in terms of liquid and ice crystal density.  A water vapor feedback mechanism would require an increase in specific humidity levels in these high pressure areas. The reverse is observed. If a greenhouse effect were present it would be unamplified and tiny. Any warming tendency in these areas is more likely to be due to a loss of ice cloud density than a greenhouse effect.

If the Earth enters a period of cooling, as it has since 1998, it suggests that the natural factor is pre-eminent. If there is a strong relationship between ice cloud density and surface temperature it confirms the point that moisture in the upper troposphere cools rather than warms the planet and the basis of the greenhouse feedback mechanism is negated. Without a water vapor amplifier a change in so called ‘greenhouse gas’ levels can have little or no effect upon surface temperature.

If we can rid ourselves of the foolish mantra that surface temperature is governed by so called greenhouse gas, much unnecessary pain can be avoided. We are threatened by zealous governments keen to interfere in markets, raise taxation and redistribute incomes. The absurd notion that carbon is a pollutant is daily promoted.  ‘Will of the wisp’ schemes to generate renewable energy burden the public purse. Nothing is to be gained by these stratagems. Innovation has its own rewards and investment in all forms of innovation is already well enough subsidized and feverishly exploited. Man needs no urging to innovate and will do so quite happily in the absence of artificially inflated monetary incentives. The introduction of market distorting incentives and disincentives destroys rather than creates wealth. This is the tool of the central planner, the social activist, the miscreant.

Distraction and absurdity are our unhappy lot, parading as morality and virtue. Snake oil salesmen multiply by the minute. These are unfortunate times.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The authority of ‘Science’ and the United Nations organization has been subverted to the activists cause. This is a sorry time for mankind. It is a time when belief is substituted for science and the two are irretrievably tangled and confused.

DATA

The data used in this study can be downloaded from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

As I understand it the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis project uses a computer model to cross check the validity of data from many sources with the aim of representing the surface and the atmosphere of the entire globe. Data for one atmospheric parameter is related to other parameters that vary together in a known fashion. When a temperature recording station shifts site there is a discontinuity in the data. The reanalysis project is designed to overcome this sort of problem. This dataset is particularly valuable for research on climate change.

The sea surface data from the NCEP/NCAR dataset exhibits much greater variability than other datasets. The NCEP/NCAR data reflecs skin temperatures that respond to atmospheric change. Winter minima are lower while summer maxima are similar. Change is faster in the skin data with earlier seasonal maxima and minima. Sea surface temperature data incorporates ice and land surface temperature at high latitudes.

I understand that satellite derived sea surface temperature data for areas beyond about 60° latitude requires an adjustment for the extent of floating ice. Some SST datasets do not extend to higher latitudes. Because the NCEP/NCAR dataset provides skin temperature it covers all latitudes.

Some sources of SST data relate more to a near surface rather than a skin temperature reflecting the origin of data in the measurement of water temperature from engine intake, bucket or floating buoy. This is not the case with the NCEP/NCAR dataset.

Here’s the plot from RSS – October is 0.282°C

Click for a larger image

The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 was published yesterday and has dropped after peaking in January.   The change from September with a value of 0.476°C to October’s 0.282°C is a (∆T) of  -0.194°C.

Recent RSS anomalies

2009 01 0.322
2009 02 0.230
2009 03 0.172
2009 04 0.202
2009 05 0.090
2009 06 0.081
2009 07 0.388
2009 08 0.270
2009 09 0.476
2009 10 0.282

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)
The RSS data is here (RSS Data Version 3.2)

A divergence developed in the Feb 09 data between RSS and UAH, and opposite in direction to boot. UAH was 0.347 and RSS was 0.230

I spoke with Dr. Roy Spencer at the ICCC09 conference (3/10) and asked him about the data divergence.

Here is what he had to say:

“I believe it has to do with the differences in how diurnal variation is tracked and adjusted for.” he said. I noted that Feburary was a month with large diurnal variations.

For that reason, UAH has been using data from the AQUA satellite MSU, and RSS to my knowledge does not, and makes an adjustment to account for it. I believe our data [UAH] is probably closer to the true anomaly temperature, and if I’m right, we’ll see the two datasets converge again when the diurnal variations are minimized.”

It certainly looks like the data sets are converged now, with a scant difference between UAH and RSS  in October of .002°C and that Dr. Spencer was right.

Read the details on the October UAH data here.

Photo - Graphic: Christine Daniloff MIT

Judith Layzer says there’s no easy way out when it comes to climate change — but that geo-engineering might be a last-ditch solution.

From David Chandler, MIT News Office

In the middle of a day filled with a stream of information-packed PowerPoint displays and alarming projections of what the future holds for our planet and our civilization, Judith Layzer’s talk was something of an anomaly.

Layzer, an assistant professor of environmental policy in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning, was among the speakers at last Friday’s daylong symposium on “Engineering a Cooler Earth.” She immediately changed the tone of the day’s presentations by dispensing with graphs and charts and speaking only with the aid of her quite expressive gestures.

The symposium was a detailed exploration of a subject that has long been nearly taboo even for polite discussion: that instead of, or in addition to, the emissions-reduction strategies usually looked at as a way to stave off the dangers of global climate change, there might be other ways of solving or at least reducing some of the effects faster, more inexpensively or both, through grand schemes collectively known as geo-engineering. These include two major approaches: pulling carbon dioxide right out of the air, or blocking some percentage of incoming sunlight to reduce temperatures.

Drawing upon colorful anecdotes and historical references, Layzer described the uphill battle the world faces in dealing with the social and political realities of trying to change deeply entrenched habits, systems and interests.

She began by talking about the new bestseller, “SuperFreakonomics,” which ends with a chapter about geo-engineering and has attracted a storm of controversy for its suggestion of a possible cheap, easy fix. “[The authors] begin by saying that catastrophic climate change is unlikely,” Layzer explained, and then go on to suggest that any efforts to curb emissions, though worth pursuing, are likely to be “too little, too late,” but that instead the geo-engineering approach offers an “easy fix.”

The chapter focuses on one particular approach to reducing sunlight: injecting massive amounts of sulfur into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect observed after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. “There’s a fundamental disagreement,” she suggested, “over whether the risks of geo-engineering exceed the risks of climate change.”

The risks, as several symposium speakers described in detail, include the fact that such an approach would require an essentially permanent commitment to a massive project — injecting two Pinatubo’s-worth of sulfur into the stratosphere every year — that, if stopped at any time, could lead to an even more rapid rise in global temperatures than would happen with no intervention. And the fact that, with increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, oceans would continue to grow more acidic and thwart the growth of any marine shellfish and coral.

Virtually all of the symposium’s presenters agreed that the methods based on reducing sunlight, as with the sulfur injections, are too uncertain and prone to side effects to be serious candidates for solving the problem. Carbon-removal schemes, however, might have some promise and are worth at least researching. These ideas include enhancements to natural biological processes that remove carbon from the air, or the development of technological substitutes such as “artificial trees” that could have the same effect.

Layzer, like most of the symposium’s speakers, framed geo-engineering approaches as something that might turn out to be necessary if other measures fail to take hold, or if the rate of climate change turns out to be worse than expected. In short, something that should be studied just in case.

At its core, the intense controversy over global warming, and over concepts for ameliorating its effects through geo-engineering, is not so much about the science or the technology, she suggested. “The debate is and will continue to be driven by political considerations.”

She said she sees some hope for a common-sense path that may bypass the very different world views of the often-acrimonious sides in debates over global-warming policy. Increasingly, she said, big businesses that for many years were pressuring political leaders to delay any action on controlling carbon emissions now see a new clean-energy future as an opportunity. Helped along by President Barack Obama’s framing of the issue, she said, they have increasingly “changed the image from sacrifice to business gains.”

Nobody thinks the road to mitigating climate change will be easy. Any such efforts involve “going up against the biggest industry in the history of mankind,” Layzer points out. Still, “the political momentum does seem to be real,” she said, “and the collapse of coalitions that have opposed it is the best evidence of that.”

The main focus, she and most of the other symposium speakers emphasized, should remain on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. But with a problem so fraught with uncertainties and political complexities, it makes sense to hedge our bets.

And that’s a point that’s clear enough, without the need for a chart or a graph.

From Roger Pielke Sr.

A very good news article titled Expanding cities contribute to global warming by Doyle Rice has been published on USA Today.

The article is based on our paper

Fall, S., D. Niyogi, A. Gluhovsky, R. A. Pielke Sr., E. Kalnay, and G. Rochon, 2009: Impacts of land use land cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: Assessment using the North American Regional Reanalysis. Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1996.

The USA Today article reads

Photo: Interstate 15 cuts between new homes and mountains in Corona, Calif. (Ric Francis, AP)

The USA’s expanding cities and suburbs are contributing more to global warming than previously thought, says a new study in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology.

“We found that most land-use changes, especially urbanization, result in warming,” said study co-author Eugenia Kalnay of the University of Maryland.

Most scientists believe man-made climate change is primarily the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So, does this mean rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases are less significant? No, say study authors.

“I think that greenhouse warming is incredibly important, but land use should not be neglected,” Kalnay said. “It clearly contributes to warming, especially in urban and arid areas.”

As for how much it contributes, compared to greenhouse gases, “we cannot provide a specific percentage,” writes study co-author Roger Pielke, Sr., of the University of Colorado in an e-mail. “But our results suggest that land-use change can affect surface temperatures as much or more than what has been simulated by the global climate models as being due to added CO2 from human activities.”

The study recommends that the predicted land-use changes be incorporated into the computer models designed to forecast changes in climate conditions. This is key, according to study co-author Dev Niyogi of Purdue University. He said that even with aggressive green emission controls, warming will still continue unless how we use the land is considered.

“Continued temperature changes will occur as long as the landscape continues to be altered,” added Pielke. “The subject of the effect of future land use change on local and regional climate should be a major focus of upcoming climate assessments.”

Among the study’s findings:

– Land use conversion more often results in warming than cooling.
– Urbanization and conversion to bare soils have the largest warming impacts.
– Conversion to agriculture results in cooling, while conversion from agriculture generally results in warming.
– In general, the more the vegetation covers an area of land, the cooler its contribution to surface temperature.
– Deforestation generally results in warming, with the exception of a shift from forest to agriculture
– The temperature effect of planting a new forest is unclear.

BUMPED, UPDATED:

TS Ida, once hurricane Ida and a Cat 2 storm last night, has now fallen apart.

To help you keep an eye on it, I have the satellite imagery here along with animated loops.

Animate this image: Loop it >>>

Here’s the latest advisory and trajectory map from the National Hurricane Center:

BULLETIN
TROPICAL STORM IDA ADVISORY NUMBER  23
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL   AL112009
900 AM CST MON NOV 09 2009

...IDA WEAKENS TO A TROPICAL STORM...

AT 9 AM CST...1500 UTC...ALL HURRICANE WARNINGS AND WATCHES ALONG
THE GULF COAST HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED.  A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS
NOW IN EFFECT FROM GRAND ISLE LOUISIANA EASTWARD TO THE AUCILLA
RIVER FLORIDA...INCLUDING NEW ORLEANS AND LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN.  A
TROPICAL STORM WARNING MEANS THAT TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS ARE
EXPECTED SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE WARNING AREA WITHIN 24 HOURS.

FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA...PLEASE MONITOR
PRODUCTS ISSUED BY YOUR LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECAST
OFFICE.  

AT 900 AM CST...1500 UTC...THE CENTER OF TROPICAL STORM IDA WAS
LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 26.5 NORTH...LONGITUDE 88.3 WEST OR ABOUT 185
MILES...300 KM...SOUTH-SOUTHEAST OF THE MOUTH OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER AND ABOUT 285 MILES...460 KM...SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF PENSACOLA
FLORIDA.

IDA IS MOVING TOWARD THE NORTH-NORTHWEST NEAR 17 MPH...28 KM/HR. A
TURN TOWARD THE NORTH AND THEN TO THE NORTH-NORTHEAST IS EXPECTED
OVER THE NEXT 24 HOURS.  ON THE FORECAST TRACK...THE CENTER OF IDA
IS EXPECTED TO MAKE LANDFALL ALONG THE NORTHERN GULF COAST TUESDAY
MORNING.  AFTER LANDFALL...A TURN TO THE EAST IS EXPECTED ON
TUESDAY.

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS CONTINUE TO DECREASE AND ARE NOW NEAR 70
MPH...110 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER GUSTS.  SOME ADDITIONAL WEAKENING IS
EXPECTED TODAY AS IDA APPROACHES THE COAST.

TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 200 MILES...325 KM
FROM THE CENTER.

THE ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE IS 996 MB...29.41 INCHES.

RAINS FROM IDA WILL BE REACHING THE COAST OVER PORTIONS OF THE
WARNING AREA WITHIN THE NEXT HOUR OR SO. TOTAL STORM ACCUMULATIONS
OF 3 TO 6 INCHES...WITH ISOLATED MAXIMUM STORM TOTALS OF 8
INCHES...ARE POSSIBLE THROUGH WEDNESDAY MORNING FROM THE CENTRAL
AND EASTERN GULF COAST NORTHWARD INTO THE EASTERN PORTIONS OF THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY...THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS...AND THE SOUTHEASTERN
UNITED STATES.

A DANGEROUS STORM TIDE WILL RAISE WATER LEVELS BY AS MUCH AS
3 TO 5 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL ALONG THE COAST NEAR AND TO THE
EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER MAKES LANDFALL. NEAR THE COAST...THE SURGE
WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY LARGE AND DESTRUCTIVE WAVES.

...SUMMARY OF 900 AM CST INFORMATION...
LOCATION...26.5N 88.3W
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...70 MPH
PRESENT MOVEMENT...NORTH-NORTHWEST OR 340 DEGREES AT 17 MPH
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...996 MB

David Archibald forwarded me this PowerPoint presentation from Jan Janssens which he presented on October 22nd. It has some very interesting slides and is a good summary of the current debate over solar cycle 24.

I’ve put the entire slide show online in the post below at 50% size, as the PDF download of the PowerPoint document is quite large. For those that want it, you’ll find it at the end of the post mirrored on WUWT’s file system so that better bandwidth can help out.

The PDF of the PowerPoint (with full sized graphs) is available here

Warning, large file 5.6MB

Personally, I think this has to do with thunderstorms being essentially linear accelerators, vertical SLAC’s if you will. Huge charge differentials from top of cloud to bottom makes for a nice particle slingshot. There’s plenty of opportunity for antimatter (positrons) to be created in energetic collisions from particles coming out of the tops of thunderstorms. Sprites and blue jets for example, may be indicators for energetic particles.

It could also be very energetic photons from lightning as seen in the diagram below. At the high photon energies (twice the rest energy of electrons at 511 keV) and above 1.022 MeV positron-electron pair production may take place. Getting energies of 1.022 million electron volts certainly seems easy enough in thunderstorms. – Anthony

From Sciencenews.org: Signature of antimatter detected in lightning

Fermi telescope finds evidence that positrons, not just electrons, are in storms on Earth

By Ron Cowen

 

During two recent lightning storms, the Fermi telescope found evidence that positrons, not just electrons, are in storms on Earth.Axel Rouvin/Flickr

Washington — Designed to scan the heavens thousands to billions of light-years beyond the solar system for gamma rays, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has also picked up a shocking vibe from Earth. During its first 14 months of operation, the flying observatory has detected 17 gamma-ray flashes associated with terrestrial storms — and some of those flashes have contained a surprising signature of antimatter.

During two recent lightning storms, Fermi recorded gamma-ray emissions of a particular energy that could have been produced only by the decay of energetic positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons. The observations are the first of their kind for lightning storms. Michael Briggs of the University of Alabama in Huntsville announced the puzzling findings November 5 at the 2009 Fermi Symposium.

It’s a surprise to have found the signature of positrons during a lightning storm, Briggs said.

The17 flashes Fermi detected occurred just before, during and immediately after lightning strikes, as tracked by the World Wide Lightning Location Network.

During lightning storms previously observed by other spacecraft, energetic electrons moving toward the craft slowed down and produced gamma rays. The unusual positron signature seen by Fermi suggests that the normal orientation for an electric field associated with a lightning storm somehow reversed, Briggs said. Modelers are now working to figure out how the field reversal could have occurred. But for now, he said, the answer is up in the air.

Recording gamma-ray flashes — which have the potential to harm airplanes in storms — isn’t new. The first were found by NASA’s Compton Gamma-ray Observatory in the early 1990s. NASA’s RHESSI satellite, which primarily looks at X-ray and gamma-ray emissions from the sun, has found some 800 terrestrial gamma-ray flashes, Briggs noted.

The pyramid of aluminum shown in the photograph figures greatly in our nation’s history. This once rare metal was so prized that it was placed into a national monument by a grateful nation. Can you guess where? Now, aluminum is so common, thanks to an electrical refining process and plentiful, cheap electricity, that we throw it away in soda cans.

Two seemingly unrelated events on opposite sides of the globe occurred this past week.

One was the closure of an aluminum plant in Montana, and the other is the president of a European metals association threatened to move production overseas citing environmental rules and energy costs escalating due to emissions trading schemes.

Both stories are presented below. At the end, is the story of our “Aluminum Pyramid”, now in a  national monument.

The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana - click for larger image

Google Map of above is here

First, Montana.

How They Are Turning Off the Lights in America

by Edwin X. Berry

On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.

How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America’s industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices.

America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why?

Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum.

But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville?

We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America’s elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos stated to fall.

They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970’s. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges.

The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth’s radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide.

The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, “How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1972 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?”

He answered me by saying, “You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do.”

Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, “I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?”

He answered, “I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA.”

After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs.

And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming.

Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global-warming propaganda. The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government’s tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming – now called “climate change” because it’s no longer warming – come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know.

Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California’s AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global-warming fraud.)

In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been “clean” by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as “dirty” and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama.

And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960’s. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960’s the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America.

Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: “natural” conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global-warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.

So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.

Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion … her many resources saved for whom?

Edwin X Berry, PhD [send him mail] is an atmospheric physicist and certified consulting meteorologist with Climate Physics, LLC in Montana. Visit his website.

From Heliogenic Climate Change:

Economic death march in Europe

“European non-ferrous metals producers may move to countries where environmental legislation is less strict unless the impact of forthcoming measures is reduced, an industry spokesman said on Thursday.

Javier Targhetta, president of Eurometaux, said the industry was concerned over high and unpredictable power costs [and] the added cost of a new emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2013 …

Targhetta was particularly concerned over what he said was the reluctance of utilities to sell power for terms of three years or more following deregulation for heavy users in Spain last year.

“This increases long-term insecurity and leads to a halt in investment. If we carry on like this, the industry is destined to disappear,” he said.

Eurometaux estimates a new phase of the ETS could hike its power costs by an unsustainable 150-200 million euros ($221.1-294.8 million), and may prompt “carbon leakage,” or relocation to countries where emission costs are low or nil.

“Carbon will still be produced, it will still be producing the greenhouse effect, but a European plant will have been lost,” Targhetta said.”
…

Electricity accounts for an average of 35 percent of production costs for non-ferrous metals — 60 percent for aluminum — and producers say big differences in policy between European countries and lack of interconnection make power more expensive.

Source: Reuters, “Europe metals producers warn of relocation“

Read the Eurometaux press release here (PDF)

From Wikipedia:

The building of the monument proceeded quickly after Congress had provided sufficient funding. In four years, it was finally completed, with the 100 ounce (2.85 kg) aluminum tip/lightning-rod being put in place on December 6, 1884. It was the largest single piece of aluminum cast at the time. In 1884 aluminum was as expensive as silver, both $1 per ounce.

Over time, however, the price of the metal dropped; the invention of the Hall-Héroult electric refining process in 1886 caused the high price of aluminum to permanently collapse. The monument opened to the public on October 9, 1888.

Still confused? It is the Washington monument.

Read the history of the aluminum cap here:

The Point of a Monument: A History of the Aluminum Cap of the Washington Monument

From the weather is not climate department, it seems that the USA is not the only country experiencing an October cold snap.

Bus tour to the mountains. Undated image from: christchurchnz.com

Coldest October in 64 years

LATEST: It will come as little surprise to most New Zealanders that the country shivered through the coldest October in 64 years.

In its climate summary for the month, the Niwa said the average temperature nationwide was 10.6degC _ 1.4degC below average.

Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years, the last time in 1945.

It was only fractionally warmer than August, which recorded a warmer-than-normal average temperature of 10.4degC.

Niwa said October was shaped by a series of southerly fronts, all-time record low temperatures in many areas, and unseasonable late snowfalls.

The heaviest October snowfall since 1967 occurred in Hawke’s Bay and the central  North Island on Octobe 4 and 5 stranding hundreds of travellers, closing roads, and resulting in heavy lambing losses.

Not only was it cold, but it was also wet.

Rainfall was near-record (more than 200 percent of normal) in parts of Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne and the Tararua district, and well above normal in the remaining east  of the North Island, as well as Wellington, Marlborough and parts of Canterbury.

It was, however, dry and sunnier than usual on the West Coast of the South Island.

For those pinning their hopes on a quick thaw, Niwa is predicting temperatures over the next three months to be near average for the North Island and top of the South Island, but below average elsewhere.

The Times posted a surprising story this weekend that has skeptics cheering and alarmists hopping mad. It’s deja vu all over again. (See QOTW#21) Roger Pielke Sr. will be happy, because land use change is prominently mentioned.

Here’s the line:

“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,”

Here’s the article, highlights mine:

Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown

Hannah Devlin

Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.

They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.

“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.

Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word” that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species. “I’m certainly not a climate change denier, far from it, but we have to have sound policies for managing our ecosystems,” she said.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature backed the article, saying that climate change is “far from the number-one threat” to the survival of most species. “There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more,” said Jean Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program, which is responsible for compiling the international Redlist of endangered species.

He listed hunting, overfishing, and destruction of habitat by humans as more critical for the majority of species.

However, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds disagreed, saying that climate change was the single biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet. “There’s an absolutely undeniable affect that’s happening now,” said John Clare, an RSPB spokesman. “There have been huge declines in British sea birds.”

The article, published today in the journal Science, reviews recent research on climate change and biodiversity, arguing that many simulations are not sufficiently detailed to give accurate predictions.

In particular, the landscape is often described at very low resolution, not taking into account finer variations in vegetation and altitude that are vital predictors for biodiversity.

Read the complete article at the Times here:

Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown