I don’t think that headline means what they think it means:
Separating Science From Spin on the Global-Warming ‘Pause’
What’s causing a temporary slowdown in planetary warming, and why should anyone worry that more warming is coming?
Blame the volcanoes
While greenhouse gases are trapping heat, volcanoes are doing their best to block it out.
===========================================================
Analysis: Foes of Obama climate policy prepare battle over cost of carbon
(Reuters) – Three months ago, the Obama administration made a little-noticed but potentially pivotal move in the stepped-up fight against climate change: it boosted the U.S. government’s official estimate of the future economic damage caused by carbon pollution.
After its first review, a panel of technical experts from 11 government agencies raised the so-called “social cost of carbon,” known as SCC. The measure is used by many arms of the U.S. government to determine the financial benefits of new regulations since 2010.
The new 2020 forecast of $43 a ton was a 58 percent jump from the previous estimate, made in 2010. The issue is to be reviewed biannually.
===========================================================
The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures
The New York Times feverishly reported on August 10 that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to issue another scary climate report. Dismissing the recent 17 years or so of flat global temperatures, the IPCC will assert that: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/
==============================================================
Ten Year Anniversary of the Climate Change Paradigm Shift
By Howard Richman & Raymond Richman
Science advances by paradigm shifts. My one-time co-researcher, Nobel Prize winning economist Herb Simon, once explained it to me. The new paradigm begins with a new overall curve. Further research builds upon that curve by mapping the phenomena responsible for fluctuations from the curve. That’s the normal scientific process. But establishing a new big curve requires a paradigm shift.
Such a paradigm shift started a decade ago, when Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer published the ground-breaking study that laid out the chief long-term cause of climate change — cosmic rays. The graph below shows the curve that they discovered. The original is found and explained on Nir Shaviv’s blog at http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages:
Shaviv had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half of the above graph). What they found is that ice ages occurred when the Earth traveled through the spiral arms of our galaxy, periods when the Earth must have been experiencing high levels of cosmic ray inflow.
=============================================================
Brian H writes:
Mann, Jones et al, in a nutshell. From Judith Curry:
Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.
Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
================================================================
Temperatures too cold in the south for Cotton….
http://photos.al.com/huntsville-times/2013/08/cool_temperatures_chill_cotton_4.html#incart_photo
================================================================
Maybe this is why:
2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps From July 24 to August 19
http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/2899-record-cold-temps-667-record-warm-temps/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regarding the cosmic ray theory…
Confusing assumptions about the cosmic ray theory.
From Sciencedaily:
Since the earth is near the outer rotation perimeter, it takes the earth a very long time to attain a full ‘orbit’ with old sol around the Milky Way; perhaps 220 million years, perhaps more, perhaps less.
Also from Sciencedaily:
Earth’s path through space is similar to a corkscrew as it circles a moving sun orbiting the Milky Way while the sun also oscillates within our personal arm of the Milky Way. The current estimates are that earth follows the sun in a sine wave from less dense to more dense space and that every 35-40 million years we are in the dense portion.
I don’t quite see major cosmic ray differences between a dense or less dense portion of the galaxy’s arm (technically earth and sol are in the Orion arm of our galaxy.
Neither of Earth’s major orbiting relations to our galaxy have a cycle that matches the cosmic ray charts in the article nor to their ice ages estimate.
I don’t remember seeing a verified history of ice ages spanning 500 billion or even 500 million years. I’ve seen some rough estimates, but none with a clear cycle.
I don’t disagree that cosmic rays influence our weather and our climate; I just disagree with the above version of a cosmic ray theory.
gopal panicker says:
August 22, 2013 at 5:56 am
why do i say the cosmic ray stuff is bull…the sun has a 11 year cycle…which modulates the cosmic ray flux…no 11 year cycle observed..QED
If the climate does not respond in 11 years, you won’t see it. Think of it as a low pass filter. This does not mean that you will not see on a longer time frame.
What volcanoes?!?!
Let’s see. US carbon emissions 2012 were about 5.2. billion metric tons. Roughly 30% of electricity generation can be considered non-emitting and we’ll be generous and not split up things along the lines of home heating, electricity generation etc and just assume that 70% of total energy generation emitted those 5.2 btons. US GDP for 2012 is estimated at 16.62 trillion dollars. 70% of those were created by emitting 5.2 btons of CO2. This values a ton of CO2 at a net positive of $3196, not a net negative of $43.
But let’s not be picky. If we assign an additional price on CO2 of $43 per ton, that means the GDP shrinks by $223 billion. Roll that around in your mouth for a minute. $223 billion. That’s 1.3% of GDP or nearly 2/3 of the total growth of the US economy in all of 2012. And Obama plans to shave that off the economy and throw it down a chute of inefficient renewables, imploding green companies and foreign climate change aid.
re: rgbatduke’s extended history at August 22, 2013 at 5:44 am:
One correction – Nixon is the moron who declared a “War on Drugs”. Congress made marijuana into a Schedule I narcotic in 1970. Pres Reagan may be guilty of a lot but he is innocent of that particular charge above.
Here is My “…official estimate of the future economic damage caused by carbon pollution…”. Prediction: that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, agricultural output will go up. By what twisted logic is that “economic damage”? FACE studies show a 30% increase in productivity with an increase from 400 PPM CO2 to 500 PPM CO2.
I think a lot of people have missed the subtle admission by the IPCC in the leaked statement:
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
The use of “more than half” is actually a big departure from AR4 where they attributed 93% of warming to humans. Now the number is arguably 50-55%. If it were higher wouldn’t they have said something stronger? The warming over the stated period is around 6.2C according to Hadcrut4. If human are responsible for just over half of that total then that limits our impact to around 3.2C in 60 years or .053C/decade. If we extrapolate that out to 2100 it is less than .5C. That will essentially destroy any claims of extreme warming.
Now, I suspect the IPCC will claim the warming will accelerate, but this statement in and of itself could be used by skeptics to attack the alarmists.
The around 11 year cycle for cosmic rays impacting temperature, sea level rise, humidity, and cloud cover can be seen again and again many times in the following, which includes references (click again to further enlarge):
http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif
Mike McMillan says:
August 22, 2013 at 4:58 am
Is there a difference between the Shaviv/Veizer and the Svensmark theories?
=============================================================
No. They collaborated on some significant research, including Svensmark;s SKY
experiment. (sky means cloud in Danish)
The CERN CLOUD experiment in 2010 confirmed the SKY experiment’s findings.
It’s larger scale, though, uncovered the catalytic role played by the tiny quantities
of ammonia in the atmosphere.
The author of the americanthinker article made a mistake, possibly a typo,
in writing ‘500 billion’ years. The universe just isn’t that old. It’s about 13 billion.
Svensmark’s papers all deal with 500 MILLION, which is about the time it takes
for the Solar System to complete 2 orbits of the galaxy.
For more information on this, you can check Nigel Calder’s blog at
calderup.wordpress.com. It’s very informative.
The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures
And the New York Times has a very good reason for pushing the propaganda.
Bloke down the pub says:
August 22, 2013 at 4:13 am
Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, see his sciencebits web site: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
(Shaviv supports Svenmark)
More:
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/flitspost/de-invloed-van-zonne-intensiteit-op-de-oceaan_169719.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
A listing of his articles on Cosmic Rays: http://www.sciencebits.com/search/node/cosmic
gopal panicker says:
August 22, 2013 at 5:56 am
why do i say the cosmic ray stuff is bull…the sun has a 11 year cycle…which modulates the cosmic ray flux…no 11 year cycle observed..QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have just shown you can’t even bother to read what PHYSICISTS who know a lot more about the subject than you are saying.
PEER REVIEWED PAPERS:
As far as the sun goes:
Solar-Climate Relationships in the Post-Pleistocene
(Science, Volume 171, Number 3977, pp. 1242-1243, March 1971)
– J. Roger Bray
Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
(Science, Volume 180, Number 4082, pp. 185-186, April 1973)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Solar Radiation Changes and the Weather
(Nature, Volume 245, Number 5426, pp. 443-446, October 1973)
– J. W. King
Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp. 581–588, March 1974)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Sun-weather relationships
(Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 13, pp. 10-19, April 1975)
– J. W. King
Seasonal variation and magnitude of the solar sector structure–atmospheric vorticity effect
(Nature, Volume 255, Number 5509, pp. 539-540, June 1975)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
On the reality of a sun-weather effect (solar magnetic structure effect on vorticity)
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 33, pp. 1113-1116, June 1976)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
– J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton
Climate and the changing sun
(Climatic Change, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 173-190, June 1977)
– John A. Eddy
Variations in sunspot structure and climate
(Climatic Change, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. 79-92, March 1979)
– Douglas V. Hoyt
Interplanetary Magnetic Field Polarity and the Size of Low-Pressure Troughs Near 180°W Longitude
(Science, Volume 204, Number 4388, pp. 60-62, April 1979)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Intensity of tropospheric circulation associated with solar magnetic sector boundary transits
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp. 657-659, June 1979)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
And over 50 more papers
…..
As far as Cosmic rays goes:
Solar Variability and the Lower Atmosphere
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 56, Issue 12, pp. 1240-1248, December 1975)
– Robert E. Dickinson
Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
– Brian A. Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer
Apparent Tropospheric Response to MeV-GeV Particle Flux Variations: A Connection Via Electrofreezing of Supercooled Water in High-Level Clouds?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Issue D12, pp. 22283-22296, December 1991)
– Brian A. Tinsley, Glen W. Deen
Atmospheric transparency variations associated with geomagnetic disturbances
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp. 1135-1138, September 1992)
– M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Babushkina
Atmospheric transparency variations caused by cosmic rays
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 251-253, August 1994)
– V. K. Roldugin, E. V. Vashenyuk
Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp. 335-341, May 1995)
– Y. I. Stozhkov et al.
Variations of Total Cloudiness during Solar Cosmic Ray Events
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 36, Number 1, pp. 108–111, May 1995)
– S. V. Veretenenko, M. I. Pudovkin
Cloudiness decreases associated with Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 11, pp. 1349-1355, September 1995)
– M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Veretenenko
And over 50 more papers
A listing of the additional papers with links HERE.
rgbatduke says: @ur momisugly August 22, 2013 at 5:44 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for the information. A real KEEPER!
Based on Gail’s note, I went back to read rgbatdue’s essay above. A close parallel indeed. Well worth the read.