Newsbytes from The Global Warming Policy Foundation and Dr. Benny Peiser
The idea that China is to blame for the global temperature standstill does not stand up. It is a fact that in a world where CO2 is increasing year by year, the world’s temperature has not increased. The cause remains a mystery and nobody knows how long it will continue. It might seem an obvious thing to say but the credibility of global warming science rests on the fact that global warming has to resume. If it doesn’t happen fairly soon, then some of our assumptions about the science will need rethinking. –- GWPF, David Whitehouse, 14 July 2011
The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change. —The Local, 13 July 2011
The worst drought to hit the Horn of Africa in more than 60 years is likely the result of strong seasonal weather phenomenon in the region, scientists say. The United Nations’ humanitarian news agency IRIN notes that global climate change isn’t the likely culprit. —UPI, 13 July 2011
The GWPF apologises to all members and others trying to access our website late Tuesday 12 and all day Wednesday 13 July. The website was experiencing problems and was therefore offline. These have now been resolved.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Well I have been to Shanghai and Suzhou a few weeks ago, and the air was very very opaque, grayish brown, with a bad industrial smell. I never saw a blur sky or a star at night.”
Jay, while I don’t doubt that China’s pollution is worse than ever, your description reminds me of my first visit there in 1982 and my last visit a few years ago. I will say that despite the increase of pollution, the country is better for it. Still, they need to implement greater emission controls.
Now that that is settled – and it seems that the big swing is starting – The National Geographic has moved to what should have been the focus instead of AGW and CO2 – feeding the world’s population. If the cooling means shorter growing seasons then watch out/!
According to the UN food supplies section we do not have much in reserve anywhere. Storage and distribution are big problems but growing enough is too. And taking food for ethanol is another issue.
Ian W says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:44 am
“Surely scientists should not be discussing atmospheric temperatures with unthinking averaging of daily-min+daily-max/2 for polar and tropical air as a way of measuring energy budget?”
Yeah, we know. Welcome to Hell.
nicola scafetta says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 am
“The temperature standstill since 2000 is easily explained by a natural 60-year cycle in the temperature of likely astronomical origin not reproduced by the computer models…”
Definitely agree on the ~60 year cycle. I’m not sure how I can access your paper. You may be on to something there. But, an external ~60 year forcing is not necessary, in any case. It is more likely, in my estimation, simply to be a modal response of the planetary climate system.
Here’s another possibility I happened on the other day, though. Let’s suppose that the Sun’s instantaneous average temperature is dominated by the sum of a bias and two sinusoidally varying processes
Tsun = A + B*cos(w1*t + phi1) + C*cos(w2*t + phi2)
where w1 = 2*pi/T1 is the radial frequency of a process with period T1, and similarly for w2. A, B, and C are constants of proportionality. The phases phi1 and phi2 determine the relative phase of the cyclical processes.
Let us assume that Sun Spot numbers are proportional to the magnitude of the cyclical part:
Sspot ~ | B*cos(w1*t + phi1) + C*cos(w2*t + phi2) |
The square of this process is
Sspot^2 = (B*cos(w1*t + phi1))^2 + (C*cos(w2*t + phi2))^2 +
2*B*C*cos(w1*t + phi1)*cos(w2*t + phi2)
or, using trig identities
Sspot^2 = (B^2+C^2)/2 + (B^2/2)*cos(2*(w1*t+phi1)) + (C^2/2)*cos(2*(w2*t+phi2)) +
B*C*( cos((w1+w2)*t+phi1+phi2) + cos((w1-w2)*t+phi1-phi2) )
Thus, we have frequencies of 2*w1, 2*w2, w1+w2, and w1-w2, which is to say, periods of T1/2, T2/2, T1*T2/(T2+T1), T1*T2/(T2-T1). Spectral analysis shows that this is essentially what we have, with T1 = ~20 years, and T2 = ~23.6 years. This begets periods in the Sun Spot data of T1/2 = 10 years, T2/2 = 11.8 years, T1*T2/(T2+T1) = 10.8 years, and T1*T2/(T2-T1) = 131 years.
Now, radiative heat transfer goes as temperature to the fourth power, so Earth temperatures should be modulated at all the combinations above taken one step further, and including the bias offset of temperature not reflected in the Sun Spot data. So, we have frequencies of 4*w1, 4*w2, 2*(w1+w2), 2*(w1-w2), 3*w1+w2, w1-w2, 3*w1-w2, w1+w2, w1+3*w2, -w1+3*w2, 2*w1, 2*w2, all modulo sign. The periods are then T1/4, T2/4, 0.5*T1*T2/(T2+T1), 0.5*T1*T2/(T2-T1), T1*T2/(3*T2+T1), T1*T2/(T2-T1), T1*T2/(3*T2-T1), T1*T2/(T2+T1), T1*T2/(T2+3*T1), T1*T2/(3*T1-T2), T1/2, T2/2, T1, and T2. These work out to 5, 5.9, 5.4, 65.6, 5.2, 131, 9.3, 10.8, 5.6, 13, 10, 11.8, 20, and 23.6 years. Some of these may cancel each other out depending on the phases and amplitudes. And, some may be attenuated or amplified by the Earth’s actual thermal response, particularly the shorter period (higher frequency) ones ought to tend to be attenuated.
Most of these periods appear to describe the locations of major and minor peaks in the 20th century HADCRUT data within the resolution of the PSD. In particular, there is the ~65 year one, and what may be an average of the 20 and 23.6 year ones, which would resolve into two peaks with more data.
It may just be coincidence, but some food for thought. I could do all sorts of things to nail down the relationships if this were my actual job.
Shevva – By George you’ve got it.
To the faithful members of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, this article would be more appropriately titled “The China SinDrome”! China’s sinful use of coal is masking the horrors of man made global warming….. and misleading the fossil fueled pagan masses from the path of Green Righteousness.
Ah well… All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of ‘Green’…..
When there are such ongoing conjecture with no evidence, it is only too clear of such a big scam. China’s increases have made no difference to the SAOT and these will only affect regional parts of China, not the rest of the world when in the lower troposphere. Sorry, but these countries temperatures doesn’t cause global one to pause. China would have to cool many times more than any hidden warming in global tempertures.
I don’t see any observed link between tropospheric areosol only spike trends and global surface temperature spike trends. Whereas cooling is defintely seen with significant increases in stratospheric areosol opical thickness. The graphs below corrects global temperatures with SAOT and the results are shown.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4660/had3vsaotadj1900.png
Since 1900 and the changes just can’t remove anywhere near the cooling during 1940′s and 1970′s to even just make it flat.
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5816/had3vsaotadj1979.png
Since 1979 the adjustments for statopheric areosol optical thickness changes doesn’t even come close to prevent the pause in recent years.
English version of above Italian web page:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=it&tl=en&u=http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=15034
The hockey stick plot of the spacial shift of the N. Pole is real? If the pole shift in kilometers created a meaningful shift in outward angle of its magnetic extension into space then cosmic ray effects on local cloud formation would create lots of “alarming” local ice melt hockey sticks. James Bond may need to be called in on this one.
Ian W said: “Why are we averaging temperature of polar dry low enthalpy air with tropical humid high enthalpy air?”
Hansen makes the claim that the Greenland ice core T reconstruction that shows today’s spike to be just another of over a dozen identical spikes in the past should be discounted since past warming atop a huge ice cap is “amplified,” but he leaves out of his statement the logical conclusion that then recent warming there in the present would also represent a local amplification worthy of being discounted as well. This smoke screen is contained on a long webcam interview on SkepticalScience.com. Your above sentence reminded me of that vague feeling of unease I get when hearing AGW proclamations, due to cognitive dissonance between the authoritarian voice used and the amateur hour emasculated weakness of the scientific content being presented.
Ode to AGW climate models: “It’s insanity Max!”
So the solution to catastrophic unprecedented global warming…..
….is air pollution
Joe Bastardi says: July 14, 2011 at 11:01 am…
Joe, thank you for dropping by to comment. It would please me, and I know others who frequent WUWT, to see and read more of your comments at this forum.Your opinions are highly regarded here!
Respectfully,
Dan Murphy
@nicola scafetta says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 am
A very interesting article by Michele Casati: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=15034 (in Italian language)
English translation
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdaltonsminima.altervista.org%2F%3Fp%3D15034
Bart,
your idea is surely interesting and worth to be further investigated.
However, it does not explain the timing of the phases, that I also find to be matching between the astronomical records and the tempeature oscillations. Your theory also does not explain the origin of the original frequencies that you are using.
Hopefully, I will have new papers published on related things.
See, the solar system is not made by randomly moving objects.
There exists a clear resonance interconnection between all oscillations found in it.
The same orbits of the planets obey resonance rules, for example.
So, in my opinion there exists a complex collective syncronization mechanisms that is linking a little bit everything. Because of this collective syncronization a quasi 60-year cycle can be obtained in multiple combinations. But you still need to start from some frequecies and you need to explain their origin.
Bart says:
July 14, 2011 at 12:12 pm
If I assume the Earth responds with a bandwidth of 0.05 years^-1 and a fairly sharp rolloff after, I can actually reasonably reproduce the HADCRUT temperature PSD from the Sun Spot PSD.
Very interesting, indeed…
We must be very careful in stating that China’s pollutiing industry has caused the ten-year global temperature stasis. If this were to be accepted as a fact, I would not be surprised if the Chinese were to send us the bill for their great feat of saving the planet. LOL.
Global Cheating:
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard lied about carbon taxes to get elected in Australia and is confronted by an angry constituent. Gillard and her aides then try to pacify the lady by being patronising and continuing to lie:
[Note: That video was the subject of this article. ~dbs, mod.]
And here we find how the germans are going to save the planet that little bit more, with more coal burning:
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/utter-farce-carbon-tax-used-to-fund-new-coal-power-stations/
Utter Farce: Carbon Tax Used to Fund New Coal Power Stations.
It’s like a person’s left hand donating blood to his right hand.
nicola scafetta says:
July 14, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“Your theory also does not explain the origin of the original frequencies that you are using.”
I do not discount the possibility that there is an external driver which could be exciting things with a ~60 year period. Indeed, I mentioned one other possibility just above.
However, the Earth climate system undoubtedly has natural resonant modes, just like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge had a structural resonance at about 0.25 Hz which led to its collapse.
What you people don’t understand is that the AGW theory can never be falsified. There will always be a reason offered up – whether it be Chinese coal or the climate computer models said so….
Head we lose, tails we lose.
Not China ghg, not the 60 year planets (btw Neptune just finished its first observed orbit), not even the sun, according to the now defunct TSI, but the ocean dynamics
The AMO, PDO & SOI/ENSO indices are detrended response of the oceans changing conditions.
If the cause of the recent temperature rise is a natural one, and not the anthropogenic, than they are reflection of either the solar input or alternatively change in the oceans’ currents circulation.
Solar scientists maintain that the TSI’s variable part is insufficient to account for the changes which leaves ocean currents as the main re-distributor </a of the more or less constant absorbed solar energy.
And this is indeed the case, as confirmed in the North Atlantic: TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data show that the geostrophic velocity derived from altimeter data exhibits declining subpolar gyre circulation. Combining the data from earlier satellites, it was found that the subpolar circulation may have been weaker in the late 1990s than in the late 1970s and 1980s: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0415gyre.html
The forces affecting the oceans’ currents circulation (delta F/delta t) show a good correlation with the AMO, PDO & SOI/ENSO indices.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
Not China ghg, not the 60 year planets (btw Neptune just finished its first observed orbit), not even the sun according to the now defunct TSI, but the ocean dynamics
The AMO, PDO & SOI/ENSO indices are detrended response of the oceans changing conditions.
If the cause of the recent temperature rise is a natural one, and not the anthropogenic, than they are reflection of either the solar input or alternatively change in the oceans’ currents circulation.
Solar scientists maintain that the TSI’s variable part is insufficient to account for the changes which leaves ocean currents as the main re-distributor of the more or less constant absorbed solar energy.
And this is indeed the case, as confirmed in the North Atlantic: TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data show that the geostrophic velocity derived from altimeter data exhibits declining subpolar gyre circulation. Combining the data from earlier satellites, it was found that the subpolar circulation may have been weaker in the late 1990s than in the late 1970s and 1980s: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0415gyre.html
The forces affecting the oceans’ currents circulation (delta F/delta t) show a good correlation with the AMO, PDO & SOI/ENSO indices.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
One shouldn’t blame a country really, one should always blame the country’s government.
Back in the day Mao let a couple of tens of millions of people starve to death just so he could, pretty much, just sell the food and buy big guns. Chinese government today, they’re doing every bad thing that they can come up with to save money for energy, like not cleaning up the local environment in towns, villages, and (even inside) coal mines, even though they actually have the money to pay for “over seas” expertise, what with our western world being all a—l about health issues which only cost us plenty because we didn’t have anyone to consult. The number of people that die due to local pollution in China every year is just terrible to contemplate. The chinese government let this happen probably for the same reason the socialist part of the western world did the same a fifty to hundred and fifty years ago, too high cost. The chinese government reason the same even though the cost down the road far exceed the actual earning potential of doing right from as early as possible to start.
So don’t blame China, blame the chinese government for poor management of China incorporated.
“It might seem an obvious thing to say but the credibility of global warming science rests on the fact that global warming has to resume. If it doesn’t happen fairly soon, then some of our assumptions about the science will need rethinking. –- GWPF, David Whitehouse, 14 July 2011”
At least one whitehouse is starting to get it.
GWPF = Goofy Warmists Piddle Farting.
there is no mystery you only have to look at our sun it is simple as that no sun spots””””””””very cold in australia breaking records please Al Gore bring some heat down under”
Jimbo says:
July 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm
What you people don’t understand is that the AGW theory can never be falsified. There will always be a reason offered up – whether it be Chinese coal or the climate computer models said so….
Head we lose, tails we lose.
=====
About 3 years ago, I told a friend I wanted to live long enough to see CAGW falsified.
I was thinking 20 years should do it. This was before Climategate, and before I stumbled onto WUWT.
Having lived through the global cooling scare stories of the 70’s and early 80’s, (and getting “rich” shoveling driveways), I “knew” it was only a matter of time.
Things sure have gotten complicated since then.
Thanks everybody.
Joe Bastardi says:
July 14, 2011 at 11:01 am
Its all in the energy!!! And I want you to think about this. If we took the entire ocean atmosphere system together, how much energy could a trace gas needed for life affect it. .04% of a gas, when stacked agains the energy in the gas, which is sensitive to temperature and water vapor content, plus energy constantly added from the prime source, the ocean. It’s mind bogglingly small. The comments referring to quantifying energy are dead on! But the AGW side would never do that because it would reveal the fraud their argument is.
Bill Gray was right years ago… saying this was the biggest scam in the name of science ever.
_______
Nice to see you post here Joe (if this really is THE Joe Bastardi)
You said: “…plus energy constantly added from the prime source, the ocean”
Of course you can’t mean that, as the ocean is not the PRIME source, but only the prime reservoir of energy (a large energy capacitor if you would), but hardly the prime source. The ocean acts as a buffer for energy, not letting things get too warm to fast, nor too cool too fast.
But you know all that, and know of course that the Sun is the prime source of energy.
To your point though, comparing the energy in a trace gas (assuming you mean CO2), versus the energy in the entire system of atmosphere and ocean. The green house effect has not much to do with the energy IN CO2, but rather, how much energy CO2 can absorb and re-emit virtually instantly, redirecting some of the LW radiation that otherwise would be escaping out to space, back toward earth or toward other green house gas molecules. So it isn’t a matter of how much energy CO2 stores or has in each molecule of gas, but how much is up there to re-direct some LW back toward earth. So the more CO2, NO2, CH4, and water vapor there is in the atmosphere, the less LW escapes into space, and the bigger the change in the net energy balance…i.e. the planet warms.