Thursday, February 10th, 2011 Anne Jolis, The Wall Street Journal
Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.
Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.
Some climate alarmists claim that cyclones, such as Cyclone Yasi, are a result of man-made CO2 emissions.
We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don’t know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets’ gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.
Given the unknowns, it’s possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.
That’s not to say we’re helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas’s ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.
Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain’s GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames “the bad weather.”
Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain’s future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.
A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.
A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia’s infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.
But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma’s military regime hadn’t allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, Rangoon let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.
Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.
Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
My research has shown that the number of extreme weather events is directly proportional to the development of the news media. 150 years ago with only telegraphs, horse and sea transport there were not as many extreme weather events reported as is it is today with news channels reporting 24/7. These news channels need extreme weather events to fill their airtimes.
But that doesn’t deter MSM, UNEP, Greenpeace and WWF from state that the increase of extreme weather events is a scientific fact. Linked to CO2 of course.
I have attempted to make this same point in comments quite a number of times in recent years, but I must congratulate the author for presenting the idea in a much better written form than I can usually achieve. one additional point that I think needs to be added is that, given the highly uncertain nature of the planet’s future, what we really need to maximise is human adaptability. But every solution that has been proposed for our supposed climate perils involves investing more money, power, and control in the hands of the very hidebound bureaucracies, from the UN down to the municipal level, that have proven themselves to be the least responsive, least adaptable institutions that humanity has ever created. Even if one firmly believes in all the catastrophic fantasies about the future climate, one should at least be able to realize that none of these deadhead tax drains are in any way capable of making the problems anything but worse, as they have already and will continue to do if they aren’t definitively halted.
I have been saying this for years. If we need to adapt OR if we must mitigate, it will require wealth.
So let’s not destroy that wealth.
Besides, even if there is modest warming, there may well be no emergency, whatever, in which case restriction of wealth is criminal waste and will cost many lives.
Per Strandberg says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“My research has shown that the number of extreme weather events is directly proportional to the development of the news media. 150 years ago with only telegraphs, horse and sea transport there were not as many extreme weather events reported as is it is today with news channels reporting 24/7. These news channels need extreme weather events to fill their airtimes.”
I agree. And this is compounded by the presence of video cameras everywhere now so that there is at least cellphone footage – vital for today’s ‘news’ – of every flooded parking lot in every remote town, etc.
I also believe that the recent shift to covering the daily weather porn is no accident. It has, after all, worked to manufacture the consent that, gee, the weather sure is wierd – when it is not.
Anyhow, this article is excellent, both for its content and its significant audience.
A refreshing article, I think the tide is not only turning but washing the warmist out to sea with it.
Congratulations to atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, Anne Jolis and the Wall Street Journal for well written, level headed research report.
And thanks to Anthony for bringing it forward.
This type of research is exactly what is needed. It provides real, factual answers to these questions, not just speculation.
Here is the paper. The quote in the WSJ is almost identical to the last paragraph in the abstract.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/abstract
PDF of the paper is here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/pdf
R. de Haan says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm
The Germans just bought the New York Stock Exchange and you are discussing a Wall Street Journal article about the freaking weather!
=========
Ummm, I don’t believe there is a country/ union that could buy the NYSE, but there is talk of some kind of merger. I’m sure it will produce jobs.
Miss Jolis’s conclusions have little to do with the science she cites. Everyone agrees adaption to climate change is important. Jolis seems agree, even though she does think climate change is happening. Very odd. Everyone agrees that mitigation efforts to reduce GHG emission should not kill the economic goose: the goose lays golden eggs but also some real stinkers. CBO study did not find the cap & trade system to be a goose killer.
The research she discusses is interesting, but Compo’s data in his paper goes up to 2008. The recent debate (e.g. Krugman) is whether the extreme events of the last two years are plausibly related to AGW. Statistically we won’t know if the signal is emerging from the noise for a while yet. And there different types of extreme events to consider. From my readings as a non-expert, I’d say for hurricanes there is not much evidence of an increase due to AGW, but for droughts (like the two major ones in the Amazon this past decade) and floods there some evidence of an AGW causal link. Now, I am not claiming certainly! However the rise in global temperatures, the loss of sea ice and glaciers are unambiguously due to AGW.
And, what are those crabs doing in Antarctica? Explain that one. Is there some 40 million year ocean cycle warming the Southern Ocean?
Yeah well said.
I have at least two possible options for the rest of my geological career. Pursue alternative energies like hot rock technology, or support initiatives against AGW extremism. Which do you think is better?
regards,
Most of the pieces I read no longer mention carbon dioxide, preferring ‘carbon pollution’ instead.
Ran across this idiocy on the MNN the other day: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
This was linked off CNN’s main page. Ridiculous silliness, the comments suggest people are wising up. I’ve got to wonder about the educational state of the typical reporter however. I posted the comment regarding C vs CO2 as Anon. (not interested in a flame war from CNN’s delusional masses on my blog)
Oh yeah, another remark: I remember seeing Leonard Nimoy hosting ‘Thats incredible’ in the 1970s, when he said we could be going into an ice age in less than 200 years. Pity his science wasnt as good as his character’s was in Star Trek. I might have to get the episode off Amazon, might be funny in constrast to all the warminst alarmism now.
the MSM has been reporting/continues to report all the recent weather/bushfire events in australia as “unprecedented”, and evidence of “climate change”.
instead, the brisbane flood was manmade due to the main dam being kept too full, the floods in queensland and northern New South Wales were La Nina bringing welcome rains, Yasi may not have been a Cat5 cyclone and a policeman has been charged with setting off the Western Australian bushfires. his community forgives him:
10 Feb: WA Today: One spark, 72 homes destroyed – but fire-ravaged community forgives ‘Uncle Bob’
The bushfire-ravaged community of Roleystone has rallied around a police officer and local resident known in the neighbourhood as “Uncle Bob”, who has been charged with starting one of Perth’s most devastating bushfires…
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/one-spark-72-homes-destroyed–but-fireravaged-community-forgives-uncle-bob-20110210-1anm8.html
never before has weather been so hijacked for the sake of CAGW.
The disasters that hit Europe in the Sporer Minimum would not happen today to a country that is prepared.
They will find countries today that are not prepared, and havoc will reign.
In both the Sporer and the Maunder Minimums, the resource of the day was fuel and food.
What are we to make of an Agenda that seeks to strip away fuel and the jobs to afford such necessities?
Disastrous.
In my search for this paper I found that Dr. Compo has a web page at NOAA, here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/
The scope of his papers is noteworthy. Here is that link to his publications:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/publications.html
In one of his papers he provides a clear explanation of his work:
“The International Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth (ACRE) initiative
Abstract
Between the millennial scope of paleoclimate reconstruction and the centennial outlook of climate model projections stands the instrumental record of global climate variability and change. Recovering, understanding, and utilizing this record over the last 200–‐250 years are the goals of the international Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth (ACRE) initiative.”
Of special note is one of his papers, “Early ship-based upper-air data and comparison with the Twentieth Century Reanalysis.” I believe WUWT has discussed the use of early ship records on many occasions.
rbateman says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm
The disasters that hit Europe in the Sporer Minimum would not happen today to a country that is prepared.
They will find countries today that are not prepared, and havoc will reign.
In both the Sporer and the Maunder Minimums, the resource of the day was fuel and food.
What are we to make of an Agenda that seeks to strip away fuel and the jobs to afford such necessities?
Disastrous.
=============
Europe went through 2 world wars.
World War I,
World War II,
You really need to go to the library, because it seems like you don’t know how bad it really was.
“We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don’t know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets’ gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.”
The entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative is predicated on the assumption that we have identified, understand, can accurately measure and effectively model every variable that is involved in Earth’s climate system, and furthermore that based on this ability we have been able eliminate (or ignore) all the other variables involved, because CO2 is the omnipotent variable, which overrides all the other variables and acts effectively as Earth’s thermostat. This assumption is fundamentally flawed. Earth’s climate system is absurdly complex, there is no way we have it figured out yet. I have been trying to wrap my head around Earth’s climate system for several years and I am still just scratching the surface. The following is a summary of the potential variables in Earth’s climate system that I’ve been able to identify thus far (Note that this is a work in progress, so your additions, corrections, suggestions, etc., are most welcome).
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
which results in day and night;
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night
influences Oceanic Gyres;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre
helps drive and direct the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
especially around Antarctica;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg
which is also called the Antarctic Circumpolar Current;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
and the Arctic:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg
Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Atmospheric Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
Particularly the Easterlies and Westerlies?
Tropical Cyclones;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
Tornadoes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
and Polar Vortices;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/
Here’s an animation of the Arctic Polar Vortex in Winter 2008 – 09;
here’s an animation of the currently uncoalesced Arctic Polar Vortex and;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml
here’s an animation of the currently uncoalesced Antarctic Polar Vortex:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
Lastly, Earth’s Rotational Energy drives tba;
Dynamo/ Geomagnetic
Plate Tectonics,
Earthquakes,
Mountain Building,
Long-term Changes in Geography
2. Earth’s Orbital Energy, Elliptical Orbit around the Sun (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity) and Wobble (Axial precession):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
creates seasons;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
which drives annual changes in Arctic Sea Ice;
and Antarctic Sea Ice;
the freezing and melting of which helps to drive the Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
On longer time frames changes to Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages);
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of its climatic record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
3. Gravitational Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
The Moon and Sun have significant influence on Earth’s tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
as well as the Moon, Sun and Earth’s gravity influences Earth’s Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
Earth’s gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=205
Sun & The Moon gravity during the different phases of the Saros cycle;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
which influences Oceanic Oscillations including El Nino/La Nina;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation
the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) and;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation
the Indian_Ocean_Dipole (IOD)/Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
4. Solar Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
varies slightly based upon 11 and 22 year cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
causes evaporation;
creates clouds;
results rain;
that transfers large amounts of moisture;
and results in rivers, etc.;
“The driving force behind atmospheric circulation is solar energy, which heats the atmosphere with different intensities at the equator, the middle latitudes, and the poles.”
http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atmospheric-Circulation.html
and evaporation and condensation may help to drive changes in atmospheric pressure:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.pdf
UV;
tba
Solar – Wind;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
Solar – Coronal Holes;
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/chole.html
Solar – Solar Energetic Particles (SEP);
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/sep.html
Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection;
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/8AuCE_NNEaM/Sun-Erupts-to-Life-Unleashes-a-Huge-CME-on-13-April-2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZj1CmsJ64&feature=related
Solar Magnetosphere Breach;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqWH5Qlg8Y&feature=related
Solar Polar Field Reversal;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/
Solar Sector Boundary;
http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/
Solar Grand Minimum;
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm
“If L&P are correct and sunspots become effectively] invisible [not gone] it might mean another Grand Minimum lasting perhaps 50 years. During this time the solar cycle is still operating, cosmic rays are still modulated, and the solar wind is still buffeting the Earth.”
“It will lead to a cooling of a couple of tenths of a degree.”
5. Geothermal Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
especially when released by volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
which have been shown to influence Earth’s climate;
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
including in the infamous Year Without a Summer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
and is called a Volcanic Winter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
6. Cosmic Forces;
Galactic Cosmic Rays;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/
Galactic Magnetic Fields;
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields
Asteroids
Comets
7. Magnetic Forces;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
Solar – Above;
Earth Core Changes:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580
“appears to be generated in the Earth’s core by a dynamo process, associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources”
Moving Poles;
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere
including movement of Poles:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html
8. Atmospheric Composition
Aerosols
Particulates
Greenhouse Gases
9. Albedo
tba
10. Anthropogenic
Increases in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide,
changes in ozone concentrations and distribution,
increases in particulates and aerosols,
soot, land use changes,
urban heat islands, etc
Lastly, general summaries of the potential variables involved in Earth’s climate system:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
Once I am able to compile a reasonably encompassing list, we can begin to discuss the difficulties of accurately measuring each of these variables, the very short, and in some cases nonexistent, data record, the current impossibility of predicting the behavior of each of these variables over the next 50 – 100 years and the mind boggling complexity of predicting how each of these variables will interact and evolve together to create Earth’s climate in 50 or 100 years. I think it will take many generations of measurement, research, computing power and practice before we will be able to accurately and confidently predict Earth’s temperature more than a few days out (a big volcano could erupt at any time)…
Mike (7:54 pm):
“…everyone agrees adaption to climate change is important. Jolis seems agree, even though she does think climate change is happening…”
=======================
Of course “climate change is happening”, no-one denies that.
It also defies common sense to claim that the creation of an entirely new artificial all-pervasive property right (cap & trade) with the accompanying bureaucratic behemoth, assorted rent-seakers, lawyers, sharks and gangsters “should not kill the golden goose”.
And that’s before the inevitable loss of wealth and income which the alarmists insist is necessary to ‘stop global warming’ (which has stopped anyway) and save the world.
Another cost which is rarely factored in is the loss of liberty and inevitable civil strife.
I don’t know what those crabs are doing in Antarctica, do you?
Meanwhile, from the highest levels of the US administration, the “eminent climate scientist” Dr. John Holdren has just told the Chinese things are getting much worse and it is all our fault.
“In fact, all around the world, we are seeing variously increases in floods, wild fires, droughts, heat-waves, pest outbreaks, coral bleaching events, the power of the strongest typhoon in decades, geographic range of tropical pathogens, and all of these, possibly are caused by the climate change”
“…the enormous deadly heat-wave in 2003 which was a 101 years event at the time it occurred, up about 2 folds from the frequency which was about one in 200 years before we started to influence the climate, will be a typical event by 2050, one in 2 years by 2050, will be as hot as 2003 was in this part of Europe..”
He has computer models which predict “with quite extraordinary accuracy”,
” All you have to know about this index is yellow is worse, orange is very much worse, brown is terrible and one sees again, under the business-as-usual scenario, we are in for a future in respect to the frequency and intensity of droughts.”
The solution, however, is actually almost painless when you look at it the correct way.
“Mitigation to stabilize 450 ppmv CO2 equivalent, probably means something in the range of 2-3% lose of gross world product in 2030 and 2100. Again that’s a lot of money in absolute terms, but if the world economy is still growing at 2-3% per year, that time is the most economist project, it simply means that people have to wait until 2031 to be as rich as they would be otherwise in 2030, for till 2101 to be as rich as they would have been otherwise in 2100. That doesn’t’ seem to be too high a price to pay for avoiding disaster.” I can wait a year to be rich and save the earth.
All that is needed is to organize the scientists: “They must organize, they must raise their voices, they must push back hard when those know-nothings launch the attack. Mark Twin, the great American in the 19th century once said, the lie goes half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put on its shoes. Scientists don’t let that happen.
The rest of the gorey details here: http://www.brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/BTC/Event/20100526Climate/EnglishTranscript_052610.pdf
A possible coiuple of extras to your list:
-Earths magnetic field is declining, and is expected to flip in the geologically short future. It may affect climate.
-Solar cycles of ~?1200 and ?1400 years, which are coupled every 1500 years (as in the book “unstoppable global warming every 1500 years” by Singer) . These have been traced right back to 800,000 years ago in ice cores.
-I think Jupiter also slightly affects earth tides.
-Mid Ocean Ridge output and variation through time. MORs vary in amount and degree along with continental drift. Iceland is currently very active along MOR.
-Continental drift and configuration-eg closing of isthmus of Panama supposed to have cooled the earth when Atlantic and Pacific oceans cut off about 5 Ma.
-Rates of continental drift also vary and affect climate-eg Cambrian explosion rates of drift appear very high, and this would affect climate. Levels of phosphorous is also very high in Cambrian, and seafloor continental shelf phosphate was instrumental in leading to explosion of life, related to continental drift rates?. It is also supposed T was high in Cretaceous due to higher volcanism making more c02, however it may also have been continetal configuration at the time, not volcanism.
-When hotspots originate (eg Hawaii chain) there is a large upwelling of mgma that gets shaped like a mushroom cloud which results in very large and explosive volcanism during the birth of hotspots. These affect climate.
-Rates of subduction and extent of ocean trenches. These take down water which is supposedly recycled into explosive degassing of volcanos, but the rate of subduction and recycling varies.
-There is a theeory that El Nino is precipitated by Mid Ocean Ridge systems about the East pacific, variaiton in volcanic output creates/affects EL Nino/La Nina.
-Continental configuaration also appears to be unstable when too much land is on one hemisphere/side of globe-eg ?Cambrian, Permian-Triassic keading to mass breakup upwellign magma and climate change.
-Asteriod/comet impacts, and hotspot formation (eg Yellowstone).
I can add some more if you like, eg Tethys Ocean closing cooling earth since Tertiary, etc etc.
regards,
@Mike says: February 10, 2011 at 7:54 pm
“….but for droughts (like the two major ones in the Amazon this past decade) and floods there some evidence of an AGW causal link. Now, I am not claiming certainly! However the rise in global temperatures, the loss of sea ice and glaciers are unambiguously due to AGW.”
Nice straw clutching, Mike!
“Unambiguously” eh? You sure about that?
And whilst you are in a panic about crabs in Antarctica (did anyone ever look for them before?) you might like to check out the “loss of sea ice” figures down there.
You just keep yourself in a tizzy about a fraction of a degree increase in temperature which just might have something to do with CO2.
The rest of us are more concerned about the Trillions being spent on things that don’t work in order to ‘solve’ a non-problem.
For those who want an overview of the project, try this from Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 11
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project
G.P. Compo (1), J.S. Whitaker (2), and P.D. Sardeshmukh (1)A potential consequence of climate variability and change is an altered likelihood of weather extremes. To
estimate the fidelity of regional projections of these altered risks in the Twenty-first century, daily data is needed to assess the simulations of weather and climate throughout the Twentieth century. Such daily data must have quantified estimates of uncertainty in Twentieth century weather to allow quantitative comparison with simulations.
To this end, we have begun the Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. This Project is an effort to produce a reanalysis dataset spanning the 20th Century assimilating only surface observations of synoptic pressure, monthly sea surface temperature and sea ice distribution. The project uses the recently developed Ensemble Filter data assimilation system which allows direct computation of both the analysis and the uncertainty in that analysis.
The dataset will provide the first estimate of global tropospheric and stratospheric variability spanning more than 100 years with 6 hourly resolution. The first version has global coverage spanning 1908-1958 and 2 degree longitude-latitude horizontal resolution. Comparison with independent radiosonde data indicates that the analyses
have a high quality, with correlations higher than 0.94 throughout the troposphere. Overall, the quality is similar to that of current 3-day operational numerical weather prediction forecasts, as anticipated from previous studies.
Samples of some of the output are available here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/
“In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
___________________________
He made this statement from University of Colorado, Boulder. Wow, that takes some titanium balls. Academic/professional suicide, IMO.
ge0050 says:
February 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
A fellow Gilbert Shelton fan!
Per Strandberg says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I must concur. We threw out our TV over 20 years ago. We don’t listen to the radio, or the news. We do not suffer any unprecedented weather events. Ergo, you are correct: News Media causes extreme weather events!