Posted by invitation, from Bob Tisdale’s website – original here. Photo/caption below added by Anthony.
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Note: The original Climate Progress title included a misspelling “breathaking” that made the quoted “breathaking ignorance” quite comical.
In the recent Climate Progress post, Joe Romm wrote, “Humans are cranking up the Arctic heat by pouring steadily increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which in turn cranks up warming in the Arctic, a very well documented phenomenon (see “What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?“). The linked Climate Progress explanation of Polar Amplification pertains primarily to positive feedbacks from albedo changes caused by the retreat of ice and snow, and to contradict Romm’s statement in his recent post, the term “Greenhouse gases” does not appear in Joe’s earlier explanation of Polar Amplification, nor does CO2, methane, GHG, etc.
The comment I tried to post yesterday at Climate Progress contained the quotes and illustrations from RealClimate that I used in my July 28, 2008 post on Polar Amplification and Arctic Warming. It also included an annotated RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plot and Time-Series Graph from my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots… …Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone”.
There was nothing earth shattering in my comment, no reason for it to be deleted. Here take a look. It simply illustrated cause (El Nino events) and effect (poleward heat redistribution).
THE DELETED COMMENT
Regarding the well-documented Polar Amplification, refer to RealClimate thread here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends
Real Climate writes, “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):”
#
The following are two illustrations from the RealClimate thread. The first shows the tropical enhancement and polar amplification for a doubling of CO2 and the second illustrates the same effects for a 2% increase in solar irradiance.
http://i33.tinypic.com/10fu8p2.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/w8l4c0.jpg
RealClimate continues: “The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.
“If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.” [My Emphasis]
#####
To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile? Real Climate provides the answer. El Nino events.
Since 1976, did we endure a string of El Nino events whose frequency and magnitude greatly outweighed La Nina events? Most assuredly.
And when did polar amplification become evident in the Northern high latitudes? Immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s very visible in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude plot. I’ll make it easier to see with a time-series graph along side.
http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg
Regards
UPDATE
And for those looking for papers describing the poleward transport of heat resulting from El Nino events, the following paper can serve as a starting point. It’s Jevrejeva et al (2004) “Oceanic and atmospheric transport of multiyear El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signatures to the polar regions” (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L24210, doi:10.1029/2004GL020871, 2004):
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Jevrejeva_grl04_-_enso_to_polar.pdf?attredirects=0
Their Conclusion reads:
“We provide evidence of ENSO influence on the winter climate variability in NH during the last 150 years via signals in the 2.2, 3.5, 5.7 and 13.9 year bands. The contribution from the signals to the total variance is relatively weak, varies considerably with time, but is statistically significant. Phase relationships for the different frequency signals suggest that there are different mechanisms for distribution of the 2.2–5.7 year and the 13.9 year signals. The 2.2–5.7 year signals are most likely transmitted via the stratosphere, and the AO mediating propagation of the signals, through coupled stratospheric and tropospheric circulation variability that accounts for vertical planetary wave propagation.
“The delay of about two years in the 13.9 year signals detected in polar region can be explained by the transit time of the 13.9 year signal associated with ECW (0.13– 0.17 ms_1) propagation in the Pacific ocean, KBW (1–3 ms_1) propagation along the western margins of the Americas and by poleward-propagating of atmospheric angular momentum [Dickey et al., 2003]. This mechanism is supported by similar features in the Pacific sector of the Antarctic SST field.
“Our results highlight the importance of tropical variations for the Arctic and NA climate and probably at least the Pacific sector of the Antarctic, suggesting a global mode of interaction between atmosphere and ocean and consistent with GCM experiments of a proposed ENSO-NA link [e.g., Trenberth et al., 1998; Dong et al., 2000; Merkel and Latif, 2002].”
Posted by Bob Tisdale at 5:50 AM
stumpy says:
Okay the point is this: The “skeptic” community is having a field day right now because there has been a moderately-strong and fairly long-lived La Nina the last couple of years so that they can now draw lines through several years of data and point to a “cooling trend”. That, combined with the extremely strong El Nino that we had in 1998, which is still the record year by most accounts (although not NASA GISS, for which 2006[?] beat it out slightly), means that these people can make claims like, “Global warming stopped in 1998” and so forth.
Romm’s point is simply that once we go back into an El Nino phase, such claims will no longer be so convincing for those who don’t understand how to interpret noisy data and it will become obvious that the trend of a slow but steady rise in temperatures due to greenhouse gases continues with the normal fluctuations of things like El Nino and La Nina superimposed on top of it.
Joel Shore:
Fixed.
If it’s a slow, steady increase (for whatever reason), I see no particular longterm danger. We humans are adaptable beasties; it’s perhaps our foremost defining characteristic.
Two hundred years ago we were almost everywhere at the mercy of the forces of nature. We are now in control of them to an unprecedented degree, yet we worry more than we ever did.
“slow”
And you could be right. But I don’t see any smoke yet, much less fire.
I’m not ready for carbon rationing just yet (or health care rationing either).
” El-Nino of the century’.
Wasn’t the Nino of 1983 at least as strong as 1998?
“…state nullification rights “.
John C. Calhoun lives!
I’m afraid the issue of nullification was settled by the Civil War.
And here is the real mechanism behind Polar Amplification:
F*rting Reindeer
That’s right. According to this article, farting reindeer is a climate hazard in the Norwegian polar region:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/06/04/nyheter/landbruk/innenriks/politikk/miljo/6567101/
According to the Norwegian government, reindeer is an enemy of the environment. One of the suggestions from the Ministry of Agriculture this week is to reduce the number of reindeer by 30 000. “This will reduce the farting from the animals, which contain methane gas hazardous to the climate” reports the Lappish newspaper SAGAT.
So there you have it.
Arthur Glass (20:22:04) :
““…state nullification rights “.
John C. Calhoun lives!
I’m afraid the issue of nullification was settled by the Civil War.”
Actually, Arthur,
State nullification was a strategy by the NORTHERN states to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act’s authority to allow bounty hunters to kidnap people from northern states claiming they were escaped slaves. Pre-war SCOTUS rulings upheld that nullification was not constitutional. The Civil War didnt settle it, it was settled years before the war.
What WAS settled during the war was the idea that state representatives could walk out of congress and the Senate in order to prevent a quorum and leave the government in a rump status, as the Constitution was not built to deal with such a situation. Lincoln rightly considered that an attack upon the Constitution. During early reconstruction, occupied southern states were not allowed back into the union and into congress without having ratified the 13th and 14th amendments. However, the actual right of peaceful secession by proper due process has never been prevented, as shown later when both Cuba and the Phillipines, US territories following the Spanish American War, successfully voted to secede from the US. The Constitution does have a means for legally voting to transfer territory from one state to another and out of US control, it requires votes by the legislatures of any states involved and approval of congress. Unfortunately, most people have been led to believe that somehow the martial action of the civil war magically legislated to outlaw secession by peaceful means. There is no law in federal statute barring peaceful secession.
Anthony– Yours is an excellent website. Thanks and keep up the good work!
Alternative caption: “Not tinned food again!”
Arthur Glass: You asked, “Wasn’t the Nino of 1983 at least as strong as 1998?”
The peak NINO3.4 SST anomaly of the 1982/83 El Nino was close to that of the 1997/98 El Nino BUT the 1982/83 El Nino was suppressed by the eruiption of El Chichon. The difference in TLT response is visible in the RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude plot here:
http://i42.tinypic.com/2hfukjm.jpg
Or Compared to a Time Series Graph of NINO3.4 SST Anomalies:
http://i40.tinypic.com/6rj1p4.jpg
JAN (21:35:18) : “According to the Norwegian government, reindeer is an enemy of the environment. One of the suggestions from the Ministry of Agriculture this week is to reduce the number of reindeer by 30 000. “This will reduce the farting from the animals, which contain methane gas hazardous to the climate” reports the Lappish newspaper SAGAT.”
Oh my… one example why this greenhouse gas hysteria is absolutely dangerous. People have lost their mind, and are in fact threatening life.
I just hope in few years this movement has been cooled down, by cooling climate. Otherwise this madness and propaganda will continue.
The bears are thinking: “We won’t see any of these again soon once this current warm period is over and the water all freezes again”,
Jan and NastyWolf:
Incredible! So now the environment is threatening the environment!
Love the shot. Alt caption?:
“Shocking new evidence emerges of the startling effect warming climate is having on the genetics of marine mammals” 🙂
Caption: “George, please tell me you didn’t forget the can opener… again.”
DaveF (03:31:28):
Absolutely! The logic is …..what’s that word again…. breathtaking. It’s almost as good as global warming causing global cooling…
Somebody was talking about “breathaking ignorance”(sic)?
Headline of the piece is: THE REINDEER FART TOO MUCH
Picture caption: “Enemies of the Environment? Crown Prince Haakon and (crown princess) Mette Marit are today visiting a climate conference in Sarpsborg. Earlier this winter they were on site in Kautokeino, among what the government now declares enemies of the environment. Whether the royal couple were affected by the emissions from the reindeer, is unknown.”
You can’t make this stuff up!
Oops! Forgot the link:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/06/04/nyheter/landbruk/innenriks/politikk/miljo/6567101/
Phil wrote:
The satellite has been designed and built to do this however it was mothballed by the Bush administration in 2001. Rumor has it that Cheney was responsible which given the reluctance of anyone in NASA to talk about DSCOVR seems plausible. It’s a pity since we could have about 8 years of data by now.
Typical Bush/Cheney bashing by innuendo.
Except its not at all true.
The DSCOVR TIMELINE went like this:
1998 — Al Gore championed a low cost satellite that would broadcast
real-time images of Earth to the Internet at the relatively cheap
cost of $20 million. Dubbed Triana (after the sailor on Columbus’
voyage who first spotted the New World), Gore hoped the probe would
foster greater awareness of the fragility of the planet.
1999 — Congress halts funding on Triana and directs review by
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. This
of course happens before Bush/Cheney are even elected.
A little history:
“The Triana mission was announced to the public in March 1998. The
concept proposed was to build and launch a small spacecraft that
would provide the public with continuous views of the sunlit
hemisphere of the Earth via the Internet by the end of the year 2000.
The spacecraft would be launched into an orbit around the L1 point, a
location one million miles from Earth where the gravity of the Earth
and Sun effectively cancel each other out.
University students, industry, and government would team in the
design, development, operations, and data analysis of the mission.
Total mission cost, including launch and operations, was not to
exceed $50 million.”
On October 27, 1998, after a scientific and technical peer review,
NASA selected a proposal from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
at the University of California, San Diego (Scripps). The Scripps
proposal featured two primary instruments: a radiometer to measure
the radiance of the Earth at different wavelengths and the Earth
polychromatic imaging camera (EPIC), designed to take color pictures
of the Earth. NASA also selected portions of a proposal from Goddard—
an ultraviolet capability for the camera and a plasma magnetometer
to monitor magnetic fields and the solar wind. To pay for the
enhancements, NASA increased the mission budget to $77 million.
NASA (under the Clinton/Gore Admin) in early 1999, added more
scientific instruments to make it palatable. The increase in function also changed the launch vehicle to the Shuttel. The switch to the Shuttle was was advantagous though because at that time, NASA was not using
full cost accounting and thus NASA designated DSCOVR as a Secondary
payload and thus its launch costs on the Shuttle were absorbed by NASA and not the mission budget.
The Inspector General’s office wasn’t pleased by these shenanigans.
From the Inspector General’s report on Triana in Sept of 99.
“In the context of NASA’s constrained budget and the widespread
availability of satellite pictures of the Earth, we are concerned
about the cost and changing goals of the Triana mission. A relatively
simple and inexpensive mission focused primarily (though not
exclusively) on inspiration and education has evolved into a more
complex mission focused primarily on science. The added scientific
capabilities will increase the amount of data gathered by the
mission, but they will also increase the mission’s total cost. In
addition, due to the mission’s circumscribed peer review process, we
are concerned that Triana’s added science may not represent the best
expenditure of NASA’s limited science funding”
“We are also concerned that the Triana spacecraft, originally
conceived as a cooperative effort between university students,
industry, and government, is essentially being built, launched,
and operated by NASA. Although NASA’s major role in developing and
launching the spacecraft helped to keep the mission within its
budget, the costs of the project’s civil servant salaries and
overhead, government furnished equipment, and launch on the Space
Shuttle must still be borne by the taxpayer”
Finally, from the IG report:
Estimated total cost of Triana mission:
Excluding the potential costs involved with a delayed launch, we
estimate the total cost for the Triana mission (as currently planned)
to be approximately $144 to $220 million.
2000 — NRC report is positive about cost/benefit of project IF
sdditional science capabilities are added. Thus funding was reinstated
for the mission but included the proviso that the science package
would be significantly upgraded to allow the spacecraft to not only
beam back pictures of the earth (original mission) but to monitor the
energy budget of the planet. The spacecraft was renamed DSCOVR to
reflect the new scientific capabilities. Note that this science upgrade, to monitor the energy budget of the planent occured during the Bush Administration.
NASA puts DSCOVR on slate for a shuttle launch.
2001 — Amid deep NASA budget cuts NASA was forced to reduce Shuttle
flights, DSCOVR was removed from 2001-2 Shuttle schedule
2002 — DSCOVR put into environnmental storage at $1M/yr (this expenditure ensures that the satellite is kept in a ready condition such that NASA can launch it if an opening occurs (like an unforseen delay in another mission)
2003 — DSCOVR put back into schedule for 2004 launch on STS 107 after the major ISS construction is complete
2003 — Columbia accident delays entire Shuttle manifest including
DSCOVR
2006 — Shuttles begin to fly again, but ISS remains the priority and
there are no slots left in the launch schedule to fit DSCOVR onto a
Shuttle flight prior to the end of life for the SST.
2007 — NASA and NOAA looking into other methods besides the SST to
get DSCOVR launched.
2009 — Congress passes Omnibus Appropriations Bill 1105. The bill provides $9 Million for NASA to refurbish and ensure flight and operational readiness of DSCOVR earth science instruments. But does not appropriate money to launch it.
Still, the point is if Columbia not happened NASA would have launched DISCOVR via the Shuttle.
Following the Columbia breakup, and the long redesign prior to
restarting shuttle flights there were no Shuttle slots left to launch DSCOVR.
You can’t just take a satellite, designed for the Shuttle’s cargo bay
and launch characteristics and put it on another rocket.
And since it can’t piggyback on the Shuttle it will take the appropriation of another ~ $100 million to launch it.
Which is why DSCOVR is likely to remain mothballed for quite a few more years.
Arthur
I twice posted at Climate Progress, the link to the ice extent and ice area graphs from ther Arctic Roos website
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
with a factual comment that ice area was within one standard deviation of the 1979-1997 average and ice extent was slightly outside of one standard deviation, and that both were higher than 2007 and 2008. There was no sarcasm, no snark, just a statement of fact. Both times the post disappeared. For Romm and his minions to say there is no censorship is a load of horsesh*t.
Something that gets lost or ignored in the Evil CO2 debate: It is close to total saturation. Absorbing over 97% of what it can absorb. So doubling it won’t do much. I suppose it will change (slightly) the altitude where absorbtion nears total, but not by much. With little effect.
Mr.Watts (I think it should be “Dr.”, out of respect) has had several threads on this in the past. So comments about ‘dumping vast amounts of greenhouse gasses’ ring hollow. It just don’t work that way.
Changes in the sun’s output? Maybe 0.1% Not a biggie.
You can’t amplify what isn’t there.
Bob Tisdale: Thanks for the clarification on the relative strngths of the two Ninos.
Mike Lorrey:
I was referring to the Nullification Crisis over the ‘Tariff of Abominations’ during the early years of the Administration of Andrew Jackson, which saw the first of only two resignations of Vice Presidents in U.S. history, that of John C. Calhoun.
” In his anonymous Exposition Calhoun laid out an argument for action to be taken by the state. He argued that the Union was a compact between states. The states had the power to nullify a federal law that exceeded powers given to Congress in the constitution. The law could then be declared null and void in that state. Congress could repeal the law or could pass a constitutional amendment giving it the powers in question. If the amendment passed the state could accept the law or secede from the Union. The state legislature adopted the Ordinance of Nullification in 1833 and declared both tariffs null and void. In the text of the ordinance they also made clear ‘that we are determined to maintain this, our ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard…’”
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/john_c_calhouns_theory_of_nullification
The supposed right of states, as members of a voluntary compact, to nullify Federal laws that constituted, from Calhoun’s point-of-view, a usurpation of the powers reserved to the states, was thus intimately bound with the right to secede. What Lincoln argued, and what the Civil War decided ‘on the ground’ was the falsity of the notion that the Union was forever a voluntary compact among ultimately sovereign states from which states could opt out at will.
It seems obvious to me from Article IV, Section 2, para. 3 of the Constitution that Tawney and the Court made the correct decision in Dred Scott, unless you believe that ’empathy’ overrules the clear intent of the language of the framers.
The polar cusps are allowing additional heat to enter the atmosphere due to the precession, obliquity and inclination of the earth. When the combined angle is low enough, the polar cusp window closes and we loose the additional heat that brought us out of the last ice age. Looking at the angles of each during the mini ice age(1450 – 1850), we should be able to calculate the critical angle and predict when it will happen again. The auroras may disappear at this point.
Retired Engineer (08:30:54) :
Something that gets lost or ignored in the Evil CO2 debate: It is close to total saturation. Absorbing over 97% of what it can absorb. So doubling it won’t do much. I suppose it will change (slightly) the altitude where absorbtion nears total, but not by much. With little effect.
This is totally incorrect, CO2 absorption in the 15μm band is not 97% saturated.